ID: nht91-7.44

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: ACTION: General Motors Modified Antitheft Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert Rogers to Barry Felrice; Also attached to letter dated 2/7/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert A. Rogers (A39; Part 543)

TEXT:

On November 18, 1991, General Motors Corporation (GM) submitted a letter informing NHTSA of a change in the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system that was installed on the My 1992 Pontiac Bonneville. (GM discovered, through a review, that the information of the second generation "PASS-KEY" had not been forwarded to the agency.) Since the initial petition for the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville, but before the start of production, of the MY 1992 Bonneville, a design change had been made to include GM's second generation "PASS-KEY II" theft deterrent system, as standard equipment on this car line and not the original "PASS-KEY" system as described in the petition. GM had previously been granted a partial exemption on the original "PASS-KEY" system for the MY 1992 Bonneville.

Rulemaking has reviewed the changes to the system, and finds that the differences between the "PASS-KEY II" and the original "PASS-KEY," as described below, would qualify for de minimis treatment.

GM has changed the system in which the shut down period of the system would be for three minutes plus or minus 18 seconds, instead of the previous 2 to 4 minutes. GM believes that this is more precise than the prior system. The other change in the system is that the "PASS-KEY II" timer does not reset back to zero if further resistance comparisons are attempted while the decoder module is shut down. GM states that this functional difference will still provide a similar level of theft deterrent performance since the decoder module while in the shut down mode, will ignore any further attempts to start the vehicle by means of a key with an improper pellet resistance during that time, and continuous attempts will result in the module remaining inoperative until the proper key is used.

As stated above, Rulemaking does not believe that these changes are significant enough to warrant submission of a full modification petition by GM and, therefore, would qualify for de minimis treatment. Accordingly, Rulemaking requests a letter granting the change to the antitheft system be forwarded to GM, pursuant to Part 543.9 (j).

Attachment

USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert A. Rogers to Barry Felrice. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-7.45

DATE: December 11, 1991

FROM: Frank J. Sonzala-- Senior Vice President, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TO: Steve Wood -- Chief Council Office, NHTSA

COPYEE: D. Carter; J. Frank Haasbeek

TITLE: Deceptive Labeling of Spring Brakes

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/3/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Frank Sonzala (A39; Std. 121; Std. 106; VSA S 108)

TEXT:

Mr. Richard Carter of NHTSA told me that I should bring this following information to your attention.

It seems that spring brake manufacturers such as Lear Sigler who manufacture the Anchorlok brand spring brake have adopted a practice to add the letters D.O.T. to their chamber housing. Now, this is interpreted by the industry to connote that this type of chamber is D.O.T. approved. We feel that this is misleading and certainly not endorsed by the United States Department of Transportation.

I do not know what can be done about this situation but our customers of the I.T.I. Air Brake Chamber, the Air-Mech are asking us to get D.O.T. on our chambers. Of course, we do not intend to participate in deceptive practices. However, we request that your department send my company a letter explaining how D.0.T. should not be on any chamber and if it is, it should not be interpreted as being approved by D.O.T. or NHTSA.

If you have any questions or comments please give me a call. I have included a rendering of the "Raised D.0.T" inscription on the Anchorlok spring brake chamber casting.

ID: nht91-7.46

DATE: December 13, 1991

FROM: Tony Llama -- President, Davenport Enterprises

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 01/03/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Tony Llama (A39; Part 591)

TEXT:

We have a customer in Ecuador that assembles Fiat automobiles under a franchise from FIAT DO BRAZIL. They have contacted us for the purpose of designing and building an air conditioning unit for this vehicle. In order to do so, we must bring a car to the U.S.A. so that our engineers can work on it.

By means of this letter, we would like to request from you prior written approval of vehicle admission to the U.S.A. for a period not exceeding 90 days, at which time it will be returned to Ecuador.

This vehicle will come on a 20 foot container to our facilities in Dallas, Texas, and at no time will it be driven on the road. Upon completion of our work, it will also be returned on a 20 foot container.

The specifications of this vehicle are as follows:

Make: FIAT Motor No: 7575071 Model: PREMIO Chassis No: E-00091PI004 Engine: 1,600 cc Color: Blue

One 1,100 cc engine will also be sent in a box inside the container, so we can design a compressor mount and drive kit for this engine, since this automobile will be equipped with either engine. This engine number is: 2764999.

In order to speed up the paper work, we are enclosing copies of a previous request that was granted to us. In this case the vehicle was never sent due to problems beyond our control, so the forms were never used.

Since there are other countries bidding for this business, time is of the essence. We would be very grateful if you could send us the authorization as soon as possible.

ID: nht91-7.47

DATE: December 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Alan E. Willis -- Senior Transportation Engineer, Franchise Regulation Division, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-3-91 from Alan E. Willis to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6550)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the installation of safety shields in 1982 model year and newer taxicabs. According to your letter, the City of Los Angeles plans to require the safety shields in order to deter or prevent crimes against taxicab drivers. The safety shields would be of a bullet resistant design (1/2" thick General Electric "LEXGUARD" or equivalent) complete with side panels, seat back protection and pass-through fare box. You asked whether any safety standards apply to such safety shields. I appreciate the opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

One Federal motor vehicle safety standard, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, applies directly to interior partitions such as taxicab safety shields, if the partition contains glazing material. The glazing used in taxicab safety shields, including ones that are installed on used vehicles, must meet the requirements of that standard.

In addition, the installation of a safety shield might affect the compliance of a vehicle with a number of other safety standards, including Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. If a new vehicle is altered by the installation of a safety shield prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation is required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle complies with all safety standards affected by the alteration.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, section 108(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 installs a safety shield should ensure, by carefully comparing the safety shield and its planned installation with the requirements of relevant safety standards, 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 section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

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

ID: nht91-7.48

DATE: December 16, 1991

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

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/28/92 from Paul Jackson Rice (Stephen P. Wood) to William R. Willen, Esq. (A39; Std. 123)

TEXT:

I am writing to you seeking an interpretation.

FMVSS 123, in section 5.2.1. contains the following language: "if a motorcycle is equipped with a self proportioning, or an antilock braking device utilizing a single control for both front and rear brakes, the control shall be located and operable in the same manner as a rear brake control."

Honda is in the final stages of developing an advanced version of their proportional braking system for motorcycles. It offers:

a) Full proportioning front and rear when utilizing either the front hand control, or the rear foot control.

In order to fully comply with the "letter" of the standard, this system would seem to be out of compliance when the front hand brake is applied.

Honda feels that it is an obvious safety advantage to offer the full extent of proportioning, with "any" brake application! Honda also feels that the authors of 123 did not foresee the possibility of proportioning, being available with the application of the right, front handlebar lever.

Since the "full spirit" of FMVSS 123 is being met, Honda is seeking an interpretation of this system that would permit the use of these advancements. Telephone conversations have taken place between Doug Toms, an advisor on the project, and Steve Wood. Honda stands ready to answer any questions, or provide additional technical detail should that be desired.

Honda will be conducting sales "decision meetings" on Jan. 22, and 23, 1992. It would be most helpful if some "feeling" for your response could be gained by telephone just prior to those dates.

ID: nht91-7.49

DATE: December 18, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Masashi Maekawa -- Director, Technical Division, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-27-91 from Masashi Maekawa to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6714)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 27, 1991, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to a specific vehicle design.

Your letter depicts a combination tail/stop lamp that would be mounted on the deck lid ("Lamp B"), immediately adjacent to a combination tail/stop lamp that is mounted on the vehicle body ("Lamp A"). Each lamp complies with the requirement for effective projected luminous lens area, but neither complies with photometric requirements. You have asked whether, under S5.1.1.6 it is possible to consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purposes of measuring the photometrics for tail and stop lamps, and, if so, whether the requirements for one or two lighted sections will apply.

S5.1.1.6 covers requirements for replacement stop lamps, and does not appear relevant to our question. We have, however, addressed before the question that you raise. It is not possible to consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purposes of measuring the minimum photometrics required under Standard No. 108. We regard the lamp that is located on the body, Lamp A, as the lamp that must be designed to conform to all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108, including photometrics. In that location, Lamp A meets the requirement that stop/taillamps be located as far apart as practicable, whereas Lamp B would not. The requirements that would apply to Lamp A are those for lamps with a single lighted section. Since your letter indicates that Lamp A does not meet photometric requirements, Lamp A would be a nonconforming lamp. Lamp B is permissible as supplementary lighting equipment and need not meet the photometric or location requirements in order for the vehicle to comply with the standard. Thus, Lamp B would be permissible in its present state. (The sole restriction that Standard No. 108 imposes upon supplementary lighting equipment is that it must not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment; that possibility does not appear to exist in this design, where the two lamps are intended as complementary).

ID: nht91-7.5

DATE: November 11, 1991

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

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/23/92 from Paul Jackson Rice (by Stephen P. Wood) to Richard Gray (A39; VSA S108(a)(1)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing to in the hope that your Department may be able to assist our Organization in overcoming a couple of vehicle standards problems. The New Zealand Ministry of Transport is introducing new Vehicle Safety Standards similar to those in operation in the USA, United Kingdom, Europe and Australia. Their main thrust is to align the NZ Vehicle Standards with those of USA, Europe and UK. In doing so the cars built by the major manufacturers will require the local importers to ensure that the vehicles they import or assemble locally meet the Vehicle Standards of any of the above named countries.

However, certification of Low volume vehicles (those built in numbers less than 20O per year) is being entrusted to four organizations of which the Sports Car Club of New Zealand is playing a key role in helping to set up the certification system for all low volume vehicles including modified cars.

With the introduction of the Standards we are faced with two major problem areas; glazing and seat-belts. New Zealand has a number of privately imported American built sports cars such as the Montage, GT40, replicas, Cobra replicas, and Cheetahs to name just a few, which are facing the prospect of being legislated off our roads.

GLAZING:

The problem is that many of these cars are fitted with acrylic or polycarbonate side and/or rear glazing. The N.Z. Ministry of Transport is saying that unless we can provide proof from the relevant authorities that such glazing is permissible for use in Low Volume vehicles respective countries of origin, then they will have to have moulds made and new safety glass screens manufactured for fitment. This ruling will apply retrospectively back to 1976.

The cost of such an exercise would be prohibitive and would result in most of these cars being put off the road for good. The introduction of such a regulation would also rule out the possibility of any further low volume cars from being imported into NZ should they also be fitted with such glazing.

The fact that such cars were sold in their countries of origin with acrylic or polycarbonate screens does not help our case. The MOT say that we have no proof that the manufacturers of these cars actually complied with the regulations of their country, or that their countries of origin have any special exemptions in place for low volume vehicles.

To overcome this problem the NZ MOT require us to provide proof from the appropriate authorities in USA and UK to this effect.

A prompt reply from your Department is a matter of urgency as the introduction of the N.Z. Standards governing alternative glazing materials is set for January 1992.

Could you please reply stating if such materials are permissible, and if so, what types are allowed for use (e.g. acrylic, polycarbonate, abrasion resistant films etc), and under what circumstances, placement or conditions they are permitted.

FULL HARNESS SEATBELTS:

The fitment of 3-point dual sensitive seatbelts to the outboard front seating positions on new cars has been mandatory for some time in NZ, but there has been nothing stopping people from fitting full harness seatbelts if they so desired. However, the NZ MOT are about to stop this practice and in fact retrospectively apply the new ruling.

We believe that any person should be allowed to take extra safety precautions to protect themselves over and above those standards set down by the authorities, provided they do not endanger other people. in this regard we have noticed that quite a number of Low Volume American built sports cars come fitted with full harness seatbelts.

Again it would greatly help our case if we could have the official ruling on the provisions for fitment and use of full harness seatbelts in America.

FRONT NUMBER PLATES:

This problem is not quite so urgent, but the NZ MOT have recently decided not to allow the fitment of flexible registration plates to the front of vehicles. This is creating quite a problem with cars such as E type Jaguars, Cobra Replicas and even modern production sports cars like the MX5 to name just a few. The shape of their nose section does not allow for the fitment of rigid metal plates without them either interfering with radiator cooling or becoming a dangerous protrusion.

It would appear that the American regulations allow for the fitment of either alternative flexible registration plates, or none at all. If this is so, a copy of your registrations governing their fitment would be most helpful.

In anticipation of an early reply, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your time and assistance.

ID: nht91-7.50

DATE: December 20, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef, Esq. -- General Motors Corporation, Legal Staff

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-2-91 from Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6728)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209). Specifically, you asked if General Motors Corporation (GM) could include the term "dynamically-tested" in the label required by S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209. The answer is that GM may do so.

Prior to September 1, 1992, S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 requires a dynamically tested manual belt to be labeled with the following statement: "This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in (insert specific seating position(s), e.g., front right) in (insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)). However, a November 4, 1991 final rule, published at 56 FR 56323, amended S4.6(b) by deleting the term "dynamically-tested" from the required label, effective September 1, 1992. GM would like to continue to include the term "dynamically-tested" on its labels.

NHTSA has often addressed the issue of whether additional information may be provided along with information that is required to be labeled on the product in the context of our safety standards that apply to tires. NHTSA has consistently stated that additional information may be included on tires, provided that the additional information "does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose." See, e.g., our May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire. This is the same test we would apply in any of our safety standards for additional information that is provided along with required labeling information.

Applying this test to the situation at hand, the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 209 is to minimize the likelihood of improper installations of dynamically-tested manual belts, by specifying the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed. GM's proposed labels would provide the information about the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed on the label of these belts. The only difference between GM's proposed labels and the exact language specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 would be that GM's proposed labels would describe the belts as "dynamically-tested seat belt assemblies," instead of "seat belt assemblies." We do not see how this additional description of the belts, which is accurate and consistent with the agency's use of the term "dynamically-tested," would obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose.

Therefore, GM's proposed labeling would be permitted under the provisions

of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 that take effect September 1, 1992.

Enclosed with your letter was a petition for reconsideration that you asked be considered if the agency determined that the current language of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 prohibited the additional information to be provided on the GM labels. Since NHTSA has concluded that Standard No. 209 permits the additional information, we are disregarding that petition for reconsideration and will take no action on it.

ID: nht91-7.51

DATE: December 20, 1991

FROM: Robert W. Smith -- President, Auto Safety Corporation

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/23/92 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert W. Smith (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of November 15, 1991 in which you confirmed the points of our earlier meeting with Mr. Vinson. Also, I would like to provide an answer to the question you raised as to "...the effect, if any, that the installation of your combination license plate frame/supplementary stop lamp(s) with requirements of Standard No. 108."

We recognize the prohibition specified in the Safety Act against tampering with the motor vehicle license plate lamps, and would call your attention to the fact that those license plate lamps are for the sole purpose of illuminating the license plate itself and are part of the motor vehicle electrical circuit that also includes the front headlights and rear red driving lights. Our device, the license plate frame with built-in supplementary flashing/steady burning stop lamp, is indeed an aftermarket device and is not connected to the aforementioned motor vehicle headlight/rear light electrical circuit and therefore, does not have any effect on that system. Furthermore, our engineering precludes any physical interference and obstruction of visibility of the vehicle's license plate.

In addition, our company recognized the above safety concerns and based its engineering of the license plate stop lamp device on our patented electronic circuitry. It received a patent, in large part, because of its fail-safe features which permit increased safety while operating the motor vehicle.

I hope this explanation clears up your uncertainty about the operation of our device and I would appreciate a response from your office to that effect.

ID: nht91-7.52

DATE: December 20, 1991

FROM: James C. Hansen -- Product Development, Model E Concepts

TO: Office of the Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/19/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to James Hansen (A39; Part 567)

TEXT:

In January 1992, we will begin an engineering study relating to a proposed alteration of a vehicle that has been previously certified in accordance with National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.).

More specifically, this proposed alteration would be conducted on new and used automobiles, vans, and pickups. The purpose of the alteration, is to convert these vehicles to a hybrid version of an electric powered highway vehicle, and to do so without infringing upon the safety provisions of the vehicle as it was originally manufactured. At the present time, our alteration plans include removal of the internal combustion engine and associated support components, and on certain vehicles it may include removal of the transmission. Light duty suspension and brake systems would be replaced with heavy duty factory components, when required, to accommodate the added weight of the battery pack. In addition, to strengthen the unibody for accommodating the added weight of the battery pack, and to provide attach points for the electric drive, aluminum beams would enclose the exposed uniframe members of the original structure. Our alterations do not include changing the body or frame by making any cuts into these original structures.

Our purpose in this endeavor is to eventually offer these types of vehicles for sale to fleet operators and the general public, while complying with all safety requirements. We are aware of the temporary exemptions from motor vehicle safety standards provided in Part 555 of the Act, but prefer, for resale purposes, to be in compliance of the original standards.

Prior to beginning this exercise, we would like to more clearly understand the provisions of the safety regulations. We understand the type of alterations we plan to conduct on new and used vehicles are covered in Part 567.7 - Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles. As I stated in the above paragraphs, we do not plan to make any changes to the original unibody structure, only to strengthen it for the additional weight of the battery pack. Therefore, we would only be adding additional weight to the vehicle, but not beyond the original Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) or Gross Axle Weight Ratings (GAWR). In addition, the center-of-gravity of the vehicle would possibly be changed depending upon the locations of the added weight. In referring to Part 567.7, we understand our only requirement, because of the change in vehicle weight, is to affix to the vehicle an additional label (as described) stating the modified GVWR, and GVAR.

We are requesting, based upon your interpretation of Part 567.7, if the vehicle, altered as described, would be in compliance of all NHTSA requirements.

If you require additional information regarding this matter, I would be happy to respond. Your attention to this request is appreciated!