ID: nht91-5.51

DATE: September 17, 1991

FROM: Jeffrey P. Shimp -- Engineer, Fleet Engineering & Q.A., Transportation Department, Baltimore Gas and Electric

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeffrey P. Shimp (A38; VSA S108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

In order to better serve our customers, we have found it necessary to increase the size of our work crews from two men to three men in one of our departments. Due to the amount of material required for these crews, we have typically utilized (two passenger) cargo vans for this operation. In view of the above, we would like to install a third seat in our cargo vans (mini and/or short wheel base), which are delivered by the manufacturers as a certified completed vehicle.

We would greatly appreciate it if you could provide a written response advising us on this issue so that we can be in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and any other governing regulations.

If I can be of any assistance to you, please feel free to contact me (301/281-3630).

ID: nht91-5.6

DATE: July 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Hanna -- Lectric Limited, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-91 from Ken Hanna to Richard Van Iderstine (OCC 6238)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. 108, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification tht is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

ID: nht91-5.7

DATE: July 30, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Debby Funk

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-91 from Debby Funk to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 5, 1991, as a followup to my letter of June 25. You have asked whether "it would be illegal for the owner of a vehicle that has a center highmounted stop lamp to install an additional rear window brake light? (anywhere in the back window?)"

The answer is that it would not be illegal under Federal law for a vehicle owner to install an additional stop lamp anywhere in the back window, providing that all modifications were performed by the owner. However, the legality of the modification would still be subject to State law.

You have also asked "What is F.M.V.S.S. 108?" That is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. It can be found in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, as 571.108.

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to write.

ID: nht91-5.8

DATE: July 30, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Garth C. Bates, Jr.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-12-91 from Garth C. Bates, Jr. to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6225)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 12, 1991. In the letter, you ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has regulations concerning the construction or testing of compressed natural gas (CNG) automotive fuel tanks.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., the 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 endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, (49 CFR 571.301) specifies requirements for the integrity of motor vehicle fuel systems. However, that standard does not apply to vehicles that use only fuel with a boiling point below 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Since CNG has a boiling point well below this level, vehicles manufactured to be fueled only by CNG are not covered by the standard. You should be aware, however, that NHTSA recently discussed the possibility of establishing a fuel system integrity standard for vehicles using CNG in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The ANPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 1990 (55 FR 41561).

There are some requirements that are applicable to manufacturers of CNG automotive fuel tanks. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . .

Since your product would be manufactured for use as an automotive fuel tank, it would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. If either your company, as the equipment manufacturer,

or this agency were to determine that your product contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company would have to notify purchasers of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the ANPRM concerning possible fuel system integrity requirements for vehicles using CNG and an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

Attachments

NHTSA information sheet dated September 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. (Text omitted)

NHTSA information sheet dated September 1985 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. (Text omitted)

Copy of the Federal Register, volume 55, number 198, 10-12-90: proposed rules concerning 49 CFR Part 571, Fuel System Integrity; Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-5.9

DATE: July 30, 1991

FROM: Martin L. Marinoff

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Martin L. Marinoff (A38; Std. 105)

TEXT:

Thank you so very much for sending me the information I requested. If and when your office is restocked with (1989 Safety Related Recall #12) I would deeply appreciate you sending me a copy.

My second request is a clarification as stated in your booklet (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations). Page #2 states under Standards #105 there must be a warning light system to indicate loss of pressure or low fluid level in the braking system. Please advise, have I interpreted this passage correctly?

Your forwarding of the above information will be deeply appreciated.

ID: nht91-6.1

DATE: September 17, 1991

FROM: Herbert J. Lushan -- Regalite Plastics Corp.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-20-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Herbert J. Lushan (A38; Std. 205)

TEXT:

I am writing you at the suggestion of John Rigby.

Regalite Plastic is a manufacturer of Clear Flexible Plastic Sheets that are used in the rear windows of Convertible automobiles and as side and rear windows of Jeep-type vehicles.

Our regular clear ULTRALITE window meets and exceeds the ANSI Z26.1-1977 Item 6 test requirements.

We have been asked by one of our customers to make a bronze TINTED clear plastic flexible window for the rear and rear sides of their Jeep-type vehicle. This bronze tinted clear will not pass Test #2, Luminous Transmittance Test.

Since these Jeep-type vehicles are considered MPV (Multi purpose vehicles) by the manufacturer, I understand that they only have to meet the Item 7 SPECS which eliminates the Test #2 for Luminous Transmittance as a requirement.

Please confirm or deny whether my understanding or interpretation is correct so that we may proceed properly.

ID: nht91-6.10

DATE: September 25, 1991

FROM: Marc M. Baldwin -- Parker, McCay & Criscuolo

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re Hanley v GLAVAL - Information regarding two-point seat belt

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Marc M. Baldwin (A38; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Please find enclosed my correspondence dated August 19, 1991 regarding information on two-point seatbelts. Kindly forward to the udnersigned the requested information at your earliest convenience. If you should have any questions in this regard, please contact my paralegal, Abgela Sabato, who will be happy to assist you.

Thank you for your cooperation and courtesies in this regard.

Enclosure

August 19, 1991 File No. 1010-0123-MMB

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 4423 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, DC 20590

RE: Hanley v GLAVAL Information regarding 2-point seatbelt

Dear Sir/Madam:

Kindly forward to the undersigned information regarding the specific date when 2-point seatbelts were outlawed. The vehicle involved in my litigation was a 1984 Firebird Trans Am which was converted from a hard top to a convertible. The conversion was done in March of 1984. Please advise if they are any specific regulations regarding convertibles. If you should have any questions in this regard, or need any additional information, please contact my paralegal, Angela Sabato, who will be happy to assist you.

Thank you for your cooperation and courtesies in this regard.

Very truly yours,

MARC M. BALDWIN

ID: nht91-6.11

DATE: September 27, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Phillip Ramos, Jr. -- Philatron International

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This letter concerns an issue you raised with Mr. Robert Hellmuth of NHTSA's Enforcement office about the oil resistance test requirement of Standard 106, Brake Hoses. Your company manufactures a hose assembly that is designed for use between a towed and a towing vehicle. You believe that the oil resistance test requirement does not apply to your product.

Your view is incorrect. Standard 106 defines "brake hose" as "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes" (S4 of 49 CFR S571.106). Your hose is encompassed within that definition of a "brake hose." S7.3 of the standard states that "Each air brake hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be capable of meeting any of the requirements set forth under this heading...." The oil resistance requirement (S7.3.4) is included in S7.3. Thus, the requirement applies to your product.

We note that neither the standard nor the oil resistance requirement has any provision to exclude hose designed for use between a towed and a towing vehicle from the oil resistance requirement. In contrast, there are requirements of the standard that distinguish between brake hose used between a towed and a towing vehicle and hose used in other applications. (See, for example, the tensile strength test requirement of S7.3.10 for air brake hose assemblies.) If the agency intended to exclude hose such as yours from the oil resistance requirement, the exclusion would have been set forth in S7.3.4 or elsewhere in the standard.

We also would like to remind you that, in the event your firm has or obtains knowledge that your brake hose and assemblies do not meet the requirements of Standard 106, you must submit to NHTSA a Noncompliance Information Report in accordance with 49 CFR Part 573. The report must be submitted within five days after you determine that your product fails to comply with a motor vehicle safety standard.

Mr. Hellmuth has informed me that the Enforcement office will include your firm's air brake hose assemblies in the agency's fiscal year 1992 compliance test program. The agency will keep you advised of the status of the tests and will supply you with a copy of the final report when the tests are complete.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-6.12

DATE: September 30, 1991

FROM: W.R. Kittle -- Director, Automotive Safety Planning and Compliance, Product Strategy and Regulatory Affairs Office, Chrysler Corporation

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Petition for Temporary Exemption; Low Emission Motor Vehicle; 49 CFR 555

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to D.E. Dawkins (A39; Part 555)

TEXT:

Chrysler Corporation, a Delaware corporation, with offices at 12000 Chrysler Drive, Highland Park, Michigan 48288-1919, hereby petitions the NHTSA for a temporary exemption from certain requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the Chrysler TEVan, an electrically driven version of the Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager multipurpose passenger vehicle. The exemption is sought for a one year period.

The Chrysler TEVan has been developed in cooperation with the Electric Power Research Institute, Southern California Edison Company, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the United States Department of Energy. The acronym, TEVan, is derived from the expression, "T-115 Electric Van", where T-115 is the engineering model code for the Caravan/Voyager vehicles. TEVan is pronounced as if it were two words, "Tee Van".

The basis for this petition is the facilitation of the development of low-emission engine features. The TEVan is a low-emission motor vehicle as defined by section 123(g) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The TEVan does not have an internal combustion engine. Instead, it has an electric motor propulsion system powered by nickel-iron batteries. As a result, it will emit air pollutants in amounts significantly below new motor vehicle standards applicable under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 f-1) at the time of its manufacture, and with respect to all other pollutants, it will meet the new motor vehicle standards applicable to it under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act at the time of its manufacture.

The TEVan is a Dodge Caravan in which the internal combustion engine, transmission, coolant system, manifold-vacuum-assisted power brakes, gasoline fuel system, and engine-driven hydraulically-assisted power steering system have been replaced by an electric drive motor, a nickel-iron battery pack, a micro-processor based battery management system, a controller-convertor-charger unit, a two-speed manual or three-speed automatic transmission, and electric-motor-driven pumps for the vacuum power brakes and the hydraulically-assisted power steering. In addition, the original hot water heater/defroster unit has been replaced by a diesel fuel-burning unit. Since their manufacture, those that were equipped with the automatic transmission have been refitted with the manual transmission.

Based on certification testing of the Caravan, and the anticipated effect of the modifications above upon the vehicle, the TEVan complies with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with the considerations or exceptions indicated below.

FMVSS 102 - Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect.

S3.1.2; TRANSMISSION BRAKING EFFECT. The requirement for transmission braking effect is met by regenerative braking, in which the electric motor becomes a generator, recharging the batteries and dissipating energy in the process. Regenerative braking can be switched off at the option of the driver to restore steering control on slippery surfaces.

FMVSS 105 - Hydraulic Brake Systems

S5.1; SYSTEM BRAKE SYSTEMS. The performance of the service brake system is predicated on the use of the regenerative characteristic of the drive motor to augment the power-assisted hydraulic wheel brakes. The motor, driven through the transmission by the mass of the coasting vehicle, functions as a generator to dissipate energy through charging the drive batteries. In the performance tests of S5.1.1 - Stopping Distance, however, the transmission must be in neutral, and in the TEVan, that would preclude the contribution of regenerative braking. No tests have been conducted with the TEVan, however, it is our opinion that with regenerative braking, the stopping distance requirements would be met.

Further, in the test for evaluation of S5.1.4 - Fade and Recovery, the distance between the starting points of successive brake applications at 60 mph is 0.4 miles. The TEVan will not accelerate from 5 to 60 mph in that distance, so the test cannot be conducted as prescribed. Then too, the TEVan is considerably heavier than the parent vehicle. Nonetheless, we believe that if the test could be conducted as prescribed, and with regenerative braking, the fade and recovery requirements would be met or nearly met.

FMVSS 207 - Seating Systems

S4.2(a)-(c); GENERAL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS. The right end floor pan anchor sockets for the removable two-passenger second seat have been reduced in height below the floor pan to provide space for a portion of the battery pack. While the modified sockets are believed to be equivalent in strength to the original, compliance tests have not been performed.

FMVSS 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages S4.2; STRENGTH. The modified right end floor pan anchor sockets discussed in FMVSS 207 - Seating Systems, above, must also transmit seat belt forces to the vehicle structure through seat-mounted anchorages.

Again, while the modified sockets are believed to be equivalent in strength to the original, compliance tests have not been performed.

FMVSS 212 - Windshield Mounting, and

FMVSS 219 - Windshield Zone Intrusion

S5; REQUIREMENT. Windshield mounting and zone intrusion performance are ultimately determined by vehicle front structure crush characteristics.

The front structure of the base Caravan/Voyager, modified to support the

electric drivetrain components, is believed to be materially equivalent in strength to the original, however, a 30 mph barrier impact test has not been conducted to confirm compliance.

FMVSS 301 - Fuel System Integrity

S5.5 - FUEL SPILLAGE: BARRIER CRASH, and S5.6 - FUEL SPILLAGE: ROLLOVER. A 1.6 gallon tank has been provided just behind the rear axle for the fuel used in the diesel fuel-burning heater/defroster. The integrity of the diesel fuel system has not been evaluated with fixed and moving barrier impact tests, however, it is believed that the system would comply with the spillage requirements if the vehicle were so tested.

If exempted, the TEVan would differ from the 1989 model Year Dodge Caravan vehicle from which it was derived in that the internal combustion engine, drivetrain, and engine-driven vehicle subsystems have been replaced by an electric traction motor, a complement of nickel-iron batteries, an electric controller, and certain electrically-driven vehicle subsystems. Changes have also been made in structural elements to accommodate the latter components. To assist in the review of this petition, a brochure describing the TEVan in greater detail has been provided as Attachment 1. The probable effect on the performance of the modified vehicle with respect to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is described above.

Chrysler is not presently manufacturing the TEVan, but is manufacturing an improved version of the Dodge Caravan upon which it is based. The latter vehicle meets all applicable Federal Safety Standards.

Chrysler is not aware of any tests conducted with the TEVan in which it failed to meet a Safety Standard. Since only four vehicles have been or will be modified for field evaluation of this initial design, no testing for compliance is planned or anticipated.

While destructive compliance testing has not been conducted on any of these vehicles, Chrysler believes that their safety performance will be very like that of the Caravan/Voyager vehicle from which they were derived. While vehicle weight is much greater because of the batteries for the drive system, hydraulic brake system performance is augmented by regenerative braking. The internal combustion engine is no longer in place to share or transfer front impact forces, however, the electric motor and its controller take the place of the engine, at least in part. Similarly, the potential for fuel-fed fire is greatly reduced, first because of the nearly tenfold reduction in the size of the fuel tank, and secondly because less volatile diesel fuel is used instead of gasoline.

The exemption of these vehicles from the requirement to confirm performance with respect to the braking, crashworthiness, and post-crash standards will facilitate the development of the electric motor, controller, and battery for the next generation of the TEVan. That vehicle will be designed to comply with all Federal safety standards, to the extent that an electrically-powered vehicle can so comply.

The four vehicles that are the subject of this petition will not be brought into compliance with the Federal standards applicable to them in the 1989 model year by Chrysler. Provided an exemption is granted, one or more of the vehicles will be titled and sold for ongoing endurance evaluation.

Not more than 2,500 exempted, first generation TEVans will be sold in any 12-month period for which an exemption may be granted. In fact, only four such vehicles were manufactured for test and evaluation.

The grant of the requested exemption would be in the public interest because it would:

o facilitate the field evaluation of a low emission motor vehicle without unreasonably degrading the safety of that vehicle;-

o facilitate the development of a vehicle which could be very fuel-efficient in terms of its use of fossil fuels;

o accelerate the development of electrically-driven vehicles and related technology which could help to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

Please direct all questions regarding this petition to Howard Willson of my staff at 313-956-6037.

ID: nht91-6.13

DATE: October 3, 1991

FROM: Darrell E. Lischynski -- P.Eng., Project Manager, Energy and Processing, Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-4-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Darrell E. Lischynski (A38; Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing this letter on behalf of Calmar Industries Inc. of Outlook, Saskatchewan, who manufacture a Seat Lift Kit for Ford Supercab trucks, as described in the attached product literature. Calmar wishes to market their Lift Kit in USA, and wants to be sure that they have met all required safety regulations.

The Calmar Seat Lift Kit is an attachment to raise the rear bench seat in Ford Supercab trucks. The kit does not alter the factory seat, and uses the factory seat belts. However, the seat mounts are changed, and an extension is provided to raise the seat belt attachment point.

PAMI is an independent engineering organization funded by the provincial governments that has tested the Calmar Seat Lift Kit according to Canadian and American safety standards 207 (seating systems) and 210 (Seat Belt Anchorages) as described in the attached certificates. If these are all of the safety standards that this kit must meet, Calmar would appreciate a letter from yourself stating so. If the kit must be tested to meet other standards, please inform Denis Tofin of Calmar Industries, or myself, so that tests can be initiated.

Thank you for your time.