ID: 1886y

The Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation, on behalf of the City of Sparks, Nevada. That city's police department has received six new patrol cars equipped with air bags. According to the City Attorney for Sparks, the city police cars are often required to push disabled vehicles out of travel lanes of highways and the police officers are afraid that the air bags will be activated during these pushing operations. You asked if the Department of Transportation would authorize the Sparks police department to disconnect the air bags on its patrol cars. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Standard No. 208 requires all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection, and specified percentages of each manufacturer's 1987, 1988, and 1989 model year cars to be so equipped. Chrysler, the manufacturer of the patrol cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing air bags in these police cars.

When a safety standard like Standard No. 208 is in effect and applicable to new passenger cars, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, importing, or introducing in interstate commerce any new car that does not comply with the safety standard. However, the Safety Act provides that these prohibitions do not apply after the first purchase of the car "in good faith for purposes other than resale." Hence, the Federal requirement that the cars comply with all applicable safety standards ceased to apply when the Sparks city police department purchased these cars, since the police department bought these cars in good faith to use them as police patrol cars, not to resell them.

After the first purchase of a car in good faith for purposes other than resale, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in the car in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Obviously, disconnecting air bag systems would have that effect. Accordingly, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from disconnecting the air bag systems on the Sparks police department cars.

Please note that the Safety Act does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from rendering inoperative safety features on their own vehicles. Hence, the City of Sparks does not need any sort of "authorization" from this agency to disconnect the air bag systems on the city's police cars. The City of Sparks is permitted to disconnect the air bags on its own vehicles without violating any Federal law, just as any resident of Sparks can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating Federal law. Such removals may, however, violate the laws of the State of Nevada.

I recommend that the city carefully consider the effects of disconnecting the air bag systems in its police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the city from doing so. The air bags in those cars are an effective means of protecting vehicle occupants in frontal crashes. As to the possibility of inadvertent deployment of air bags in police cars, I note that the agency has entered into a contract under which police cars have been retrofitted with air bag systems, without a single reported instance of an air bag detonation while pushing a disabled vehicle. Enclosed is a report with some additional information on this contract. Particularly since the City of Sparks police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe those police officers deserve the benefits of automatic crash protection in their police cars.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:VSA#208 d:5/25/89

ID: nht95-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 20, 1995

FROM: Malcolm Bricklin -- President, The Electric Bicycle Company

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Petition for Exemption

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT / JOHN WOMACK TO MALCOLM BRICKLIN (A43; PART 555)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Martinez:

The Electric bicycle Company is located at 17351 West Sunset Boulevard, Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles, CA 90272. It was incorporated in the State of Nevada.

This is a petition to be exempted from two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for electrically assisted bicycles that we intend to manufacture, the "EV Warrior". The basis of the petition is that compliance with the standards, in this instance, will constitute a greater hazard to the general public and will result in more accidents caused by operator error than the alternatives that we propose. The standards for which the exemptions are requested are both set forth in:

Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays.

As you can tell from the enclosed Product Profile, the EV Warrior is essentially a multi-speed bicycle with an attached electric motor that drives the rear wheel through a friction drive wheel against the rear tire. The transmissions of each power sourc e are completely separate. Whereas the bicycle employs 6 to 21 speed derailleur shifting, the electric assist motor has no gears and no clutch. Without the electric assist motor - which can be easily removed, the device is a fully functioning bicycle an d would fall under the regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Act.

Our target market is minors and young adults whose experience riding two-wheelers derives from bicycles rather than motorcycles. In 1993, 13 million bicycles were sold in the United States compared with 488,000 motorcycles in the same year. To prevent operator error in the motoring environment, controls should be consistent with what bicycle riders have become accustomed. Two MVSS Standards are contrary to bicycle operation: Location of front and rear brake levers and use of a twist grip throttle.

The CPSC requires that the front brake be located on the left handlebar and the rear brake on the right handlebar [16 CFR 1512, Standards for Bicycles, Part 1512.5 Braking System, subsection (b) (8)] However, MVSS Standard 123, S5.2.1 Control location an d operation, requires that "If a motorcycle is equipped with a supplemental rear brake control, the control shall be located on the left handlebar."; and in Table 1., item 10. that the front wheel brake be located on the left handlebar. We believe that this regulatory inconsistency poses a serious threat to the safety of the riders of our bicycles and other road users.

MVSS Standard 123, S5.2.1 Control location and operation, Table 1., item 8. mandates a twist grip throttle on the right handlebar. though there is no CPSC mandate, more than 50% of bicycles sold through independent bicycle dealers in the united states l ast year were equipped with twist grip derailleur shifters on the handlebars. This is one of the fastest growing trends in the bicycle industry as these sales are double the sales volume of the year before. "Grip Shifters" are also sweeping the interna tional market. (For further information, we refer you to OEM Sales, SRAM Corporation/Grip Shift, 361 W. Chestnut, Chicago, IL, 60610, Telephone: 312-664-8800, Facsimile: 312-664-8826).

In addition, we have found that by using a thumb operated potentiometer throttle that self closes to stop upon release, the operator: 1.) more naturally releases the throttle when reaching for the brake; and, 2.) generally tends to rely less upon the electric assist and more on their own effort to power the bicycle.

A denial of our petition would confuse and endanger the very public the MVSS are designed to protect. Granting the exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the National Traffic Safety and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by allowing the use of controls that are standard to the great majority of prospective users.

We intend to introduce an entire generation to electric vehicles. Most kids are experienced with bicycles. Electric bicycles will allow the smoothest and most natural transition to electric vehicles.

With your cooperation, we will quickly bring to market a vehicle that is safe and effective, and will dramatically reduce air pollution, traffic congestion and depletion of non-renewable fossil fuels all while improving the health of the rider.

Brochure omitted.

ID: nht91-1.11

DATE: January 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward R. Heussner -- Consultant, Comp U Tence

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-16-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from Edward R. Heussner (OCC 5107)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking for this agency's interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion (49 CFR S571.219). You posed two questions; the first asked about the meaning of "penetration" for the area of the windshield below the "protected zone," and the second asked whether engineering judgment in lieu of crash testing, as described in S5 of Standard No. 219 would be "acceptable to the agency." Your questions are responded to below.

In your letter, you noted that section S5 provides that, when a specified crash test is conducted, "no such part of a vehicle (certain parts of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment) shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield, within the (Daylight Opening), below the protected zone defined in S6.2. (Emphasis added.) You asked whether, in order for "penetration" to have occurred, does some vehicle component have to go through the windshield or does obscuring of the glass or glass-plastic constitute a penetration.

It is our opinion that, in order for penetration of the inner surface of the windshield to occur, some vehicle component from outside the occupant compartment must break through the windshield. According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (published by Merriam-Webster Inc.), "penetrate" means: to pass into or through, to enter by overcoming resistance: PIERCE, to gain entrance to. Thus, under section S5, when the specified test is conducted, certain vehicle components from outside the occupant compartment must not pass through or pierce the inner surface of the windshield. If the windshield glass or glass-plastic were merely pushed inward by such a vehicle component, without the component breaking through the glass or glass-plastic, the inner surface of the windshield would not have been penetrated.

Regarding your second question asking whether engineering judgment in lieu of crash testing, as described in standard No. 219 would be "acceptable to the agency," please note the following. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. 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, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures

that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

If the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised due care, in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards.

Please note that this agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "due care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles or items of equipment do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

ID: 86-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Cynthia R. Syverson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 3, 1986 Ms. Cynthia R. Syverson P.O. Box 23314 Jacksonville, FL 32217 Dear Ms. Syverson: Thank you for your letter of January 7, 1986, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to a sun shading product you enclosed with you letter and asking whether the product complies with our standards. The product is a rolldown sun shade, which when extended cover a 15 x 18 inch area of a vehicle window with a piece of perforated plastic. The product is designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to this product. Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA , however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically test vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of products in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety. We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. these requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the one enclosed in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles. If you need further information, please let me know. I an returning, under separate cover, the sample you sent. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 09-007991 139

ID: 07-000305as

ID: nht94-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 23, 1994

FROM: Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef -- Attorney, GM

TO: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Alternative To 9005 & 9006 Bulbs:

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/27/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: General Motors Corporation (GM), in conjunction with Osram Sylvania Inc., has developed alternatives to two existing HB3 and HB4 (9005 and 9006) bulbs approved for automotive use in FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The alt ernative bulbs have a different base configuration than the currently approved bulbs, but in all other ways are identical. The alternative configuration would allow packaging flexibility while still maintaining all photometric/output characteristics of the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

Since the alternative bulbs improve packaging flexibility without affecting the output of the lamps, GM would like the alternative bulbs to be interchangeable with the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. We request your Office's guidance as to the most app ropriate method for seeking approval of the alternative bulb configurations.

BACKGROUND

The currently approved 9005-6 bulbs have bases that form right angles (see attachment 1). This configuration provided the most appropriate means of meeting automotive packaging considerations when these bulbs were originally approved.

Since then, however, aerodynamics and styling have dramatically affected the construction of the front of vehicles. In some instances it has become very difficult to package the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. In addition, the bulbs can be difficult t o access for replacement.

It occurred to GM and Osram Sylvania that the situation could be improved with a simple modification to the existing 9005-6 bulbs. By straightening the base of these bulbs (see attachment 2), while keeping all other design criteria the same, the packagi ng could be improved without affecting any performance characteristics of the bulbs.

Since the new configurations are identical with the currently approved bulbs in all ways other than the bases, GM believes it appropriate to allow them to be interchangeable with the existing 9005-6 bulbs. This would further enhance packaging flexibilit y by allowing alternative configurations which might be better suited to late program design changes.

The alternative bulbs will have little or no affect on the consumer. A vehicle will come equipped with one of the bulb configurations, and the operator's manual will reference the appropriate configuration. If the alternative bulb is inadvertently purc hased for replacement, it could be used in all cases except in the highly unlikely circumstance that the vehicle packaging is so restrictive as to prevent the bulb from being inserted. Once inserted it is designed to perform identically to the bulb that has been replaced, regardless of the configuration of the base. In the unlikely case that the bulb could not be inserted because of restrictive packaging, the owner would need only to return the inappropriate bulb for the bulb approved for his or her v ehicle - a situation that exists today.

To further minimize any confusion on the part of the consumer, we would recommend that the alternative bulbs have a unique identifier to distinguish them from the current bulbs. This could easily be accomplished by adding a character to the codes of the existing bulb. For example, HB3S and HB4S could be used to identify the alternative bulb configurations of HB3 and HB4.

APPROVAL PROCESS

GM believes there are three possible methods that could be used for seeking approval of the 9005-6 bulb alternative configurations. They are

1. Seek approval of the alternative configuration through 49 CFR Part 564.

The language of Part 564 suggest that we would be unable to maintain interchangeability between alternative configurations and the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. We understand these provisions were adopted to prevent interchangeability between bulb s with different photometric output, since such interchangeability could have drastic effects on headlamp beam patterns. This, however, is not the case with the alternative bulbs GM proposes. Except for the bases, they are identical in all respects to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. Therefore, there is no photometric difference between the two sets of bulbs, and hence, no safety concern.

Still, the wording in Part 564 would suggest that the alternative bulbs we developed would require a new or different connector than 9005-6. We do not believe that this is appropriate in this instance, and seek clarification of whether Part 564 direc tly applies to this circumstance.

2. Petition for FMVSS 108 rulemaking to allow new bulb configurations as alternatives to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

While this appears to be a valid method for obtaining approval of the proposed configurations, it is our understanding that NHTSA is planning to transfer all bulb specifications from the body of FMVSS 108 into Part 564. Therefore, we believe that the agency may not welcome a petition to amend FMVSS 108 to comprehend additional bulbs (or new bulb configurations).

3. Request that the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs be placed in Part 564 with the alternative configurations included on the drawing. Attachment 3 contains a draft of what the drawings might look like.

Please confirm which method the agency believes is most appropriate for seeking approval of the new alternative bulbs which, as described above, except for their bases perform identically to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

Sincerely,

ID: 77-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 6, 1977, letter asking whether two proposed labels satisfy the requirements for certification and information labels found in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample labels appear to comply with NHTSA regulations. From the illustrations you present, it appears that you have closely followed the format suggested in our regulations, and therefore, the labels seem to comply with the agency's requirements. Section S5.3(b) of Standard No. 120 permits the use of both labels when affixed in accordance with Part 567.4(b)-(f).

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

April 6, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dockets 71-19; Notice 06 and No. 75-32; Notice 02 amend FMVSS 120 "Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars" and Part 567 "Certification" by requiring tire and rim information on or adjacent to a vehicle's certification label.

Effective September 1, 1977, FMVSS 120, S5.3 (b) will allow a final stage manufacturer to use at his option, a "Tire Information Label" in conjunction with his present certification label.

The enclosed sheet depicts Truck Body and Equipment Association's proposed Tire and Rim Information Label for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's evaluation.

Are we correct in assuming that our proposed Tire-Rim Information Label when used with, and affixed adjacent to our present certification label (attachment 2) meets the new requirements of FMVSS 120 and Part 567?

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services PROPOSED "TIRE-RIM INFORMATION" LABEL

TIRE-RIM INFORMATION

GVWR

GAWR FRONT with tires, rims, at psi cold

GAWR INTERMEDIATE with tires, rims, at psi cold

GAWR REAR with tires, rims, at psi cold

VIN

Notes:

1. Yellow foil with black lettering

2. Label shall meet 567.4(b) through (f) (Illegible Text)

ID: 002769drn

J. Adam Krugh IV
Inventor
ALLSTOP
3912 West 73^rd Terrace
Shawnee Mission, KS 66208

Dear Mr. Krugh:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) regulations apply to a device you have invented, a red lamp to be placed on school bus roofs, that you believe would enhance safety for children getting on and off school buses. Our answer is provided below.

You write that your device, the ALLSTOP, is "designed to overcome the line of sight problems created by todays taller vehicles and wider roadways." You believe that with the ALLSTOP, other drivers in all directions of the bus will have adequate visible warning that the bus is loading or unloading children. A brochure accompanying your letter depicts the ALLSTOP as a red lamp attached to a metal rod in the middle of the school bus roof that stands upright perpendicular to the roof.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the ALLSTOP would only stand upright when the school bus door is open. When upright, the device would flash, similar to a "police light" with a rotating halogen lamp, or would flash by a red LED strobe light. At all other times (i.e., when the door is closed and the school bus is in motion), the ALLSTOP is not illuminated and lies flat, parallel to the school bus roof. You state that a motorized base moves the ALLSTOP up and down. You further state that the device can be manually overridden by the school bus driver to not deploy. You state that details about the ALLSTOP, such as the length of the metal rod, the type of lamp used in the device, and its flash rate, are yet to be finalized. You also stated that it is your hope that the ALLSTOP, a patented product, will be used on both new school buses and as aftermarket equipment on school buses that are already owned by schools and school districts.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards.

Under Standard No. 108, non-standard lighting devices are prohibited on new vehicles if they impair the effectiveness of lighting devices required by Standard No. 108. See S5.1.3. It is our opinion that a device such as the ALLSTOP would impair the effectiveness of the required equipment.

S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires school buses to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, or four red and four amber signal lamps, designed to meet SAE Standard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, and installed at the top and evenly spaced from the vertical centerline of the bus. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute.

As we have said before, traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly and unhesitatingly recognize the meaning lamps convey and respond to them. The required school bus signal lamp system provides an important and standardized message. It is our opinion that the addition of a novel signal lamp such as the ALLSTOP that rises from the middle of the school bus roof at the same time as the school bus signal lamp system activates would divert a driver's attention from the required signal lamps and cause confusion with respect to their meaning, and thereby impair the effectiveness of the required lamps. [1] , [2]

With respect to the aftermarket, 49 U.S.C. 30122 has the effect of requiring that the installation of any aftermarket vehicle lamp, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, must not "make inoperative" any element of design or device installed on a vehicle in accordance with Standard No. 108. As with original equipment, we regard the addition of a novel signal lamp such as the ALLSTOP to make inoperative a vehicle's original required lighting equipment by diverting a driver's attention from the required signal lamps, and causing confusion with respect to their meaning.

Modifications made by a school bus owner itself are not prohibited by our statute. However, we urge owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about lighting issues, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson. Questions about school bus issues may be addressed to Ms. Dorothy Nakama. Both attorneys may be reached at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA#571.3
d.5/22/03

ID: nht93-2.20

DATE: March 18, 1993

FROM: Jeffery A. Kester -- Product Development, Green Wheels Electric Car Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Consul, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Electric Vehicle Conversions and the FMVSS

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-21-93 from John Womack to Jeffery A. Kester (A41; 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT: I have recently spent a few enjoyable afternoons on the phone with various members of the DOT, and now I find my path leads to you. The recommendation to write to you comes from Z. Taylor Vinson and he believes you may be the one to clarify my current dilemma.

I am a principal partner in a company that intends to produce electric vehicles (EVs) for retail sale. We are not building our EVs from scratch. Instead, we intend to perform conversions on existing (used) internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). We are currently converting a 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit and intend to convert VWs of similar (1975-1984) vintage. We plan to expand our vehicle conversion operations to include 1985 and newer VW models, but we have no intention of converting new vehicles. Therefore, according to section 108, (b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (2/92 rev.), I am not bound to comply with the FMVSS and have no reason to petition for exemption from any standards in the FMVSS.

That's the rub. NTMVSA section 108(a)(2)(A) says in simple terms that I cannot "render inoperative ... any device or element of design ..." unless I believe it will not be used during the time it is rendered inoperative. I understand the purpose of this subsection, (I was in auto repair/restoration for over 12 years) but I believe it takes on new aspects when applied to rendering inoperative "devices or elements of design" on a permanent basis. The vehicle will obviously be used during the time such devices or elements of design no longer exist.

Have I found the fabled Catch 22?--I cannot receive exemptions from the FMVSS because I intend to convert cars subsequent to their first purchase (section 108 (b)(1)) so those standards do not apply, yet it appears that I will be in gross violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). I may have found a way to satisfy the needs of both sections, but it entails some creative interpretation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

The interpretation is as follows: I should be able to render inoperative devices or elements of design without violating the FMVSS, because I believe that said inoperative devices or elements of design will not compromise vehicle compliance to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards during the time said motor vehicle is in operation. The paramount wording of section 108(a)(2)(A) is "... applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards ..." I submit the example of the ICEV fuel system to which many FMVSS apply. Since that fuel system will mo longer exist on an EV conversion, there will be no applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in regard to the EV fuel system, and I will not have rendered inoperative a device or element of design of an applicable FMVSS.

The other operative phrase of section 108(a)(2)(A) is "... unless such ... business reasonably believes ..." I submit that I must have some basis for my belief in regard to the safety of the vehicle with devices or elements of design that I have rendered inoperative, and that basis must come from the FMVSS.

That brings me to you. I require something more than the right to tell the local Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV), and any prospective customers, that my vehicles comply to the FMVSS simply because I believe they do and that the FMVSS does not really apply anyway because I sell used vehicles. I hereby request your action on the following matters:

1) That you submit to me in writing your recommendation of the viability of my interpretation of section 108(a)(2)(A) and (b)(1) of the NTMVSA.

2) That, if you believe my interpretation to be viable, you submit a letter stating such that I may distribute to prospective clients and/or the RMV to aid me in convincing them of the safety of converted EVs.

3) That you submit to me in writing, your recommendations for any further action in regard to compliance with section 108(a)(2)(A).

4) That you submit to me in writing, any information or source for information concerning petition for exemption from section 108(a)(2)(A) under section 108 (a)(2)(B) if applicable.

5) That you submit to me in writing, any information or source for information concerning the status of any report, study or investigation resulting from section 108(b)(1) concerning the establishment of uniform Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all used motor vehicles.

The reason for all of this is very simple. I want to do the right thing in regard to motor vehicle safety. The fact that used cars that I convert are not required to be in compliance with the FMVSS, will not make those vehicles safe. I am attempting to design safe, reliable vehicles that I can produce on a small-scale production basis. As one of the few professional mechanics involved in the EV industry (a somewhat un-nerving fact that I have discovered over thelast year), I am very concerned that other companies may not be aware of what they are doing to the structural integrity of an ICEV when they convert it to an EV. Many of these small companies have had no contact whatsoever with DOT, or they simply opt to offer "conversion kits" which release them from any safety liability. There is currently an explosion in the small-scale EV industry, with many companies claiming to convert any ICEV to an EV. This is definitely good but it is happening faster than safety regulations are being made. Public acceptance of these vehicles is promising but so far, has been full of skepticism about safety and reliability. I believe that without some kind of Federal regulatory intervention, the poor performance and possibly disastrous outcome in the event of an EV crash, will lead to the abandonment of the modicum of public interest now being express in the EV industry.

The general opinion of the public and press is that EVs are interesting, but will not represent a viable transportation alternative until better batteries

are in production and available at a reasonable price. I am confident that better batteries will be available in the next few years. I am concerned that, their will be no standards in place to regulate how those batteries are integrated into the automobile industry. We are faced with the problem of EV safety right now, and I believe that some action must be taken now to remedy the situation.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this, if you have any, questions or comments about this letter or anything to do with EVs, please do not hesitate to write or call. I hope I hear from you soon.