ID: nht92-8.11

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: D.E. Dawkins -- Acting Director, Automotive Safety Planning and Compliance, Product Strategy and Regulatory Affairs Office, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/30/91 from W.R. Kittle to Jerry R. Curry

TEXT:

This responds to the petition dated September 30, 1991, that Mr. Kittle submitted on behalf of Chrysler corporation seeking temporary exemption for the TEVan from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards on the basis that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of low e mission motor vehicles.

The petition indicates (page 4) that exemption is sought for four 1989 Dodge Caravans, converted to electric power, that "were manufactured for test and evaluation". We understand that this conversion occurred after completion of the manufacture of the vans, and that the conversion was performed by a subsidiary of Chrysler. If an exemption is granted, the petition states that "one or more of the vehicles will be titled and sold for ongoing endurance evaluation." Finally, we understand that the TEvans are currently in the possession of the Electric Power Research Institute in California for evaluation, and that presumably they are being driven on the public roads.

We regret the delay in responding to Mr. Kittle's letter. The petition represents a rare instance in which a manufacturer has petitioned for an exemption for a vehicle whose manufacture has been completed, and which has been in use. The purpose of an exemption is to allow a manufacturer to engage in conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, specifically, the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction, or importation into the United States of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and which does not bear a certification of compliance with those standards.

With respect to the four TEVans for which petition has been made, it appears that they have already been introduced into interstate commerce without a certification of compliance (or, if bearing the certification of the original vehicle, a certification that is false and misleading in a material respect, a further violation of the Act). Any exemption by the Administrator could not cover conduct violative of the Act that has already occurred. However, we have concluded that the Administrator may grant an exemption to vehicles, which would apply to conduct that would violate the Act, but which has not occurred. As Chrysler seeks an exemption in order to sell the TEVans, or to offer them for sale, the Administrator's exemption authority may be exercised to permit Chrysler to do so, after the procedural requirements have been followed.

The petition meets our requirements for form and content, and a notice requesting public comment is being prepared for publication in the Federal

Register. We shall notify you when the Administrator has reached a decision.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht92-8.12

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carl J. Clement -- Clement Associates

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/28/92 from Carl J. Clement to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6949)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 28, 1992 requesting information on any Federal regulations that may affect a new product you are developing. The product is an electronically-operated automotive sun visor that would automatically detect the direction of sunlight or glare and reposition itself to shield the driver. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, S 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. 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. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

NHTSA has issued two safety standards that apply to sun visors: Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. These standards are called vehicle standards, because they apply to new vehicles, not to individual pieces of equipment. The Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Therefore, if your sun visor were installed as original equipment by a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor would have to comply with the requirements of these two standards. Standard No. 201 requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mounting must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of that requirement is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. Standard No. 302 requires sun visors to meet the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. The standard specifies that the material used on the visor must not burn at a rate of more than four inches per minute.

If a new vehicle is altered by the installation of your product prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation is considered an "alterer" and is required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards affected

by the alteration. In addition to Standards No. 201 and 302, the installation of your product might affect the compliance of a vehicle with a number of other safety standards, including Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors, and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

In order to avoid violating this provision, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business which installed your sun visor would have to ensure that such installation enables the vehicle to continue to comply with all applicable safety standards. Violations of S108 (a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that S108 (a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

Finally, under the Safety Act, your sun visor would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. If your sun visor will be sold as an item of equipment to be installed by the vehicle owner, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies. However, even if there is no safety standard applicable to the item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer is subject to the requirements in SS 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Additionally, a company making your product would be considered a manufacturer. A manufacturer is required by 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachments

NHTSA information sheet, dated September, 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

NHTSA information sheet, dated September, 1985 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: nht92-8.13

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Arthur J. Kuminski -- Design Engineer, Eberhard Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/3/92 from Arthur J. Kuminski to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6952)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 3, 1992 concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. You asked about the standard's test requirements for sliding doors on cargo vans (sections S4.3 and S5.3). Your three questions and the response to each follow.

1. I will need specifications on how to perform this test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and the door latch only.

Standard No. 206 "specifies requirements for side door locks and side door retention components including latches, hinges, and other supporting means, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact." The standard's requirements for sliding doors are set forth in sections S4.3 and S5.3.

Section S4.3 specifies that the track and slide combination or other supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total transverse load of 4,000 pounds is applied, with the door in the closed position. Section S5.3 states, "(c)ompliance with S4.3 shall be demonstrated by applying an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The demonstration may be performed either in the vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture."

Under section S5.3, the same basic procedure is conducted whether the test is conducted in a vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture, i.e., an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds is applied to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The details of the procedure using a bench test fixture will necessarily vary for different designs of sliding doors, since the door retention components themselves vary. The test should be conducted in such a manner that the same loads are applied to the door retention components as would occur in a vehicle test.

You specifically asked about how to perform the test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and door latch only. I note that since the requirement in section S4.3 applies to the "track and slide combination or other supporting means" for a sliding door, the striker assembly and door latch of a sliding door are tested only if they are part of the supporting means for the door. I also note that the entire supporting means for a sliding door is tested under section S5.3 and not merely one part.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of a May 13, 1975 interpretation letter to Toyota (including the incoming letter) which discusses various demonstration test fixtures which might be used to test sliding doors under Standard No. 206.

2. What load must the system withstand in the primary locked position to pass the test?

3. Is there a load requirement that the system must withstand in the secondary locked position to pass the test?

Section S4.1.1 of Standard No. 206 requires hinged doors, other than cargo-type doors to have both a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. There is not a similar requirement for sliding doors. Section S4.3 requires only one test, with a total load of 4,000 pounds, for sliding doors. This test would be performed with the door latched.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-8.14

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Gerald A. Guertin

TO: Samuel Skinner -- Secretary of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to Gerald A. Guertin (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to inquire as to the likely hood of a response to the attached letter which I wrote eight months ago. I am a school teacher and coach, and continue to wonder why vans are prohibited in Florida for the transport of school children. I am told that it has someting to do with safety.

The kindness of a reply from you would be appreciated.

Attachment

To: National Highway Traffic & Safety Assoc.

400 Seventh St., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

July 26, 1991

Dear Folks:

I am a school teacher in FLorida. The purpose of this letter is request that you verify or modify what I believe to be the reasons we cannot use 9- to 15-passenger vans in the transport of school children.

Background:

a. Presently, 7-person rifle teams, 8-person cheerleader squads, 11-person science clubs, etc. are prohibited from van transport (as are all Florida school children), forcing them to be transported in gas-guzzling, 37-passenger school busses at a gas-consumption rate of 4 miles per gallon. These clubs have to raise their own gas money through fund raising. Naturally, we'd get more trips for the buck if we were travelling in more economical vans.

b. Lore has it that seven years ago a van tipped over in southern Florida, killing a cheerleader. Prior to that, we travelled in vnas. Apparently, van roof standards were not what they should be. Your office then came forward with the need for "acceptability of crash-worthy tests" for vans, but the cost of developing and performing such tests were placed on the MANUFACTURER. (Seems strange to me).

GMC, Ford, Chrysler, as van manufacturers, decIded that they were already selling enough vans to the private consumer sector, and didn't need the school van business - at least not enough to fund heretofore unneeded tests.

c. What is holding up progress, the, is not a determination that school vans are unsafe, but rather that there are no standards to say that they ARE safe.

Question:

Does that pretty well describe the status quo? I want to push for the return of school vans, but want to be sure of the background before I begin. Please write me an explanation of events to date so I may more accurately begin my quest. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gerald A. Guertin 6800 Kitty Hawk Dr. Pensacola, FL 32506

ID: nht92-8.15

DATE: March 29, 1992

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. H. Munson -- Director, Automotive Safety Office, Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff, Ford Motor Company

TITLE: None

TEXT: I enclose an order of the Acting Administrator that grants much of Ford's petition for temporary exemption of its Ecostar van from compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The order, however, denies the petition with respect to Standard No. 106 and S7.3 of Standard No. 208.

Even though Ford does not intend to sell the Ecostars but only to lease them, 49 CFR Part 567 nevertheless requires that every motor vehicle bear its manufacturer's certification of compliance. Therefore, in accordance with 49 CFR 555.9(a), we ask that Ford provide the agency with a sample of the vehicles. The windshield label required by section 555.9(b) may be removed when the lessee takes possession of the vehicle.

ID: nht92-6.18

DATE: June 3, 1992

FROM: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TO: Michael Perel -- Research and Development, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to Steven Henderson (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your advice during our telephone conversation of May 19, and for your fax of May 20. The following letter, although originally written before our conversation, has been modified after consideration of the DOT regulations contained in your fax. I hope this letter contains sufficient information for evaluation by your legal department. Please excuse my reiteration of information from our previous conversation.

My name is Steven Henderson. I am a PhD student at McGill University, studying in the field of visual perception. I am requesting your assistance in advancing the examination of a U.S. patent application for a motorcycle hazard signalling device (filed the week of March 23, 1992). I also wish to know the opinion of your legal department regarding the extent to which DOT regulations apply to the signalling device.

About 4000 motorcyclists die every year in North America. I believe many of these deaths are due to the small size and low visibility of motorcycles, and, in collaboration with my coinventor David Kernaghan, have developed a device giving motorcyclists and bicyclists the capability of temporarily increasing their conspicuity to automobile drivers when circumstances warrant. The device is a flasher system that, in addition to signalling turns in the standard fashion, flicker the headlight, tail light, and signal lights at a rate of 10 flashes per second whenever the horn button is pressed. This flicker in the visual periphery of the car driver will initiate a reflexive saccade toward the motorcycle's location. (Vision researchers have found the human eye to be maximally responsive to a flash frequency of 10 Hz.) If the horn button is pressed while a turn is being signalled, the headlight flickers at a rate of 10 Hz, and only the actuated signal light gives out 2 Hz bursts of 10 Hz flicker. (My experience and those of other riders is that a motorcyclist is often aware of a developing dangerous situation one or two seconds before an approaching car driver sees the motorcycle, giving the device-equipped motorcyclist the opportunity to avoid an accident by signalling his or her presence to the car driver.) A photocell prevents the headlight from flickering at night. The device is also intended for use with automobile signal lights (but not automobile headlights).

The first question I wish to pose concerns the legality of the device under Section 571.108 S5.6 of the DOT regulations. On the face of it the device does appear to be proscribed by these regulations. However, the regulations are clearly intended to govern the characteristics of headlamp systems that are continuously modulated over extended periods of time, while my proposed system will be used only for very brief intervals (when the horn is sounding). The transitory nature of a signal such as a horn allows its use, even though the continuous blowing of the same horn would be considered a nuisance, and would surely be in violation of noise abatement bylaws. Indeed, the presence of a

working horn is mandated by law for all licensed vehicles, showing that a device that would be illegal if used continuously, can even be required by law if its utility as a warning device is recommended. Furthermore, the device does not violate the spirit of laws governing flashing lights and emergency vehicles, as its use would certainly not cause a motorcycle to be mistaken for an emergency vehicle. (The lights displayed at the front of an emergency vehicle are of a different color, flicker frequency, and intensity.) Finally, this DOT section may prohibit transient headlamp flicker without prohibiting transient signal light flicker at all.

The second question concerns the advancement of a patent application of the device. I strongly believe that in the interest of public safety, the device should be tested, and if found effective, should be made available to the motoring public as quickly as possible. However, as any competent technician or motorcycle mechanic could easily copy the device upon seeing it in use, I feel that patent protection must be secured before a test program is begun. Unfortunately, under normal circumstances the U.S. patent office takes about eighteen months to render a judgement after a patent application has been filed. If you and your legal department agree that the public interest is served by the advancement of examination in this case, I ask that immediate action be requested, in accordance with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, section 708.01. The section states:

37 CFR 1.102.Advancement of examination.

(a) Applications will not be advanced out of turn for examination or for further action except as provided by this part, or upon order of the Commissioner to expedite the business of the Office, or upon filing of a request under paragraph (b) of this section ...

(b)Applications wherein the inventions are deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and the head of some department of the Government requests immediate action for that reason, may be advanced for examination.

Furthermore, the current U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL states that:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was established to carry out a congressional mandate to reduce the mounting number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from auto accidents on the Nation's highways... (p.464)"

I believe that this congressional mandate indicates that the proposed invention should be "deemed of peculiar importance" to the NHTSA, and I therefore ask that the director of an appropriate department within the NHTSA make request for an advanced application under section 708.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, by supplying to me a letter addressed to the US Patent Office, which my patent attorney will forward, along with supporting documentation, to the U.S. Patent office.

I understand that such a letter is not an endorsement of the device by the NHTSA, and that the intent of the letter is solely to facilitate a research program to determine the device's lifesaving potential. Your letter would be communicated only to the U.S. Patent Office, and would never be used in a

publicity campaign or to in any way suggest that the device had received the endorsement of the NHTSA. I would certainly be willing to sign a letter to that effect.

Thank you very much for your interest in this matter. I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht92-6.19

DATE: June 2, 1992

FROM: Jeffrey Puentes -- President, Sacramento Registration Service

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to Jeffrey Puentes (A39; Part 567; VSA Sec 102(3))

TEXT:

We are the agents for a client who would like to sell kits to the retail public.

What is your definition of a Kit Car? How far into the manufacturing process can a party assemble a kit before it is classified as an automobile?

What definitions and/or rules (laws) must he follow in order to begin selling kits for kit cars to the retail public?

If you should have any questions or concerns regarding this letter, please feel free to contact us here at the below listed numbers.

We thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht92-6.2

DATE: June 22, 1992

FROM: Trevor J. Buttle -- Project P4

TO: Office of Chief Council, U.S. DOT

TITLE: Our Ref 1547; Your Fax No. 0101 202 366 2106; Re: FMVSS 102, Transmission Lever Shift Sequences

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/1/92 (est) from Paul J. Rice to Trevor Buttle (A39; Std. 101; Std. 102)

TEXT:

I am responsible for certification of a passenger vehicle being developed with a view to U.S.A. export in 2-3 years.

Could you please advise on the following concern relating to S3.1.4 of the above standard:

o The (transmission shift lever position) information is to be "displayed in view of the driver". - S3.1.4.1. I believe this relates to the 95% eye range contour, hence requiring a display on or near to the instrument binacle. Is this correct, or (as seems to be the current practice for some auto makers) is the floor shift identification sufficient? This query relates to auto and manual transmission.

o Could you also clarify whether the display should be permanently illuminated for night usage (again, some auto makers have opted to make this facility switchable).

Your assistance with these issues would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht92-6.20

DATE: June 2, 1992

FROM: John Tanner -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: John A. Cline -- Director, U.S. DOT, Congressional Liaison

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to John Tanner (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Enclosed are copies of letters I received from school systems in Tennessee who are opposed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations against the use of 11-plus passenger vans to transport students. Our office has been in contact with Dr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation at the Tennessee Department of Education about this matter.

It is my understanding that Dr. Farmer sent memos to our school systems in 1977 and 1990 about the NHTSA regulations. I respectfully request that you review their concerns and give to them your utmost consideration. Any information on the possibility of amending these regulations would be helpful so that I may respond to these constituents. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Attachments

Letters from:

Johnny Williams, Principal, North Side Junior High School, Jackson, Tennessee Sam Miles, Principal, Peabody High School, Trenton, Tennessee Jackie Vaughan, Principal, Greenfield High School, Greenfield, Tennessee Farris Lowery, Huntingdon High School, Huntingdon, Tennessee Chuck West, Principal, Dresden High School, Dresden, Tennessee Mr. Ward, Principal, Crockett County High School, Alamo, Tennessee

Text of the form letter:

Dear Legislator:

Recently throughout our state much concern has mounted in regard to recent memos from Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee State Department of Education. These memos have directed attention to an early 1970's federal law pertaining to use of vehicles with a capacity of eleven (11) or greater.

Over the years, many schools throughout the state have made use of 12 and 15 passenger vans to transport athletic teams and other school groups to and from school related event. These vans are NOT used for "pick-up" and "drops" on public roadways. Now, many systems have either had to park their vans or they are under a deadline to do so. This action already has or will create a tremendous financial burden on schools already strapped with financial hardships due to budget cuts. We fear the ultimate result will be the elimination of certain athletic teams and other school functions simply due to

the enormous expense involved in renting buses on a daily basis. Also, another tremendous problem is that of finding buses available at the time of day needed.

We desperately need your help in seeing that this law is amended or changed in order to permit the use of these vehicles. To insure that vans are maintained in a safe condition, they can be required to have the same inspection as that imposed on regular school buses.

We have real problems with a law that states we can legally use a van equipped to transport 10 passengers but we cannot use a van equipped to transport 11, 12 or 15 passengers. We do not understand the rationale in allowing a van to transport 10 passengers, but not 11, 12 or 15. We appreciate your concern in this matter and desperately need your support.

ID: nht92-6.21

DATE: June 2, 1992

FROM: Jeffrey Puentes -- President, Sacramento Registration Service

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/13/92 from Paul J. Rice to Jeffrey Puentes (A39; Std. 115; VSA 102(4))

TEXT:

We are agents for a client who is interested in manufacturing and selling to the retail public motorcycle frames.

These frames will be used to replace various types of damaged Harley Davidsons, whether they be burned, crashed, or whatever.

What federal laws must he recognize and adhere to?

Regarding serial numbers - how will frame numbers be properly identified?

What, if any, rules must he abide by and use in order to begin this type of a retail business?

Also, please note that these frames will be made for both on and off-road use. If this affects the laws he must obey, please include that as well.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us here at the below listed numbers.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.