ID: nht92-8.40

DATE: February 29, 1992

FROM: Raymond B. Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises

TO: Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Raymond B. Kesler (A39; Part 553; Std. 111)

TEXT:

PETITION

THIS IS A PETITION TO RECONSIDER AN EARLIER PETITION FOR RULE MAKING TO PROVIDE STANDARDS FOR THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN IMPROVED, VEHICULAR CONVEX REAR VIEW MIRROR FOR DRIVERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES.

From Kesler Research Enterprises 5508 Cahuenga Blvd North Hollywood, CA 91601

To the Administrator

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

Kesler Research Enterprises hereby petitions the NHTSA to reconsider the earlier petition which Kesler presented to the Administrator under date of March 9th, 1991 regarding Kesler's proposal to amend the standards for passenger vehicles right side convex rear view mirrors by an appropriate rules change.

The March 9th, 1991 petition related to the use of a CAUTION RING INDICATOR (improperly identified at that time as a "Caution Ring Sensor) for drivers using passenger side convex rear-view mirrors.

This petition deals with an advanced wide angle rear-view mirror with a permanently etched in or other wise permanently affixed TRAFFIC RING INDICATOR thereon. It is also proposed herein that the mirror be provided with a 25-inch radius of curvature (roc).

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY KESLER RESEARCH ENTERPRISES

It is our understanding that a 25-inch radius of curvature gives the driver a wider field of view of the hazardous far lane when the petitioner's traffic ring indicator is present on the mirror and it includes the rear wheel area, in the event that a child might be there.

The ring indicator is particularly designed to be within the view field of the mirror providing comparison size information to the driver of all vehicles, including motorcycles within the viewing field. With the instruction given to the driver with the mirror he will readily learn to judge the fact that objects in the mirror are closer than they appear. Thus he is provided with a measure

of the location of the vehicle in the far lane and the fact that when it appears larger than the ring perimeter a lane change would be unsafe in the direction of the far lane even though seeking to change only into the adjacent lane.

A safe lane change would be possible only if the vehicle in the far lane appears smaller than the ring or at most no larger than the ring. As the vehicle in the far lane becomes larger an estimate of the closing speed of that vehicle can be judged and thus the driver will avoid the lane change until it is clearly safe. That is when the image is smaller than the ring.

It is clearly a fact that the extra wide field of view provides a way to avoid the well-known blind spot, reduce accidents on lane changes, and when backing out of driveways.

The CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY has been made aware of the existence of the Kesler mirror. It was their organization who initially encouraged Kesler to petition for rule making to cover the mirror described above. It is respectfully suggested that the Agency reviewers may have misread the earlier petition. Kesler has wondered why the Agency reviewers had failed to request samples of the mirror for examination and test prior to the earlier judgement of rejection.

It is also true that most proposed driver or passenger safety devices on automotive vehicles, such as seat belts, extra brake light, air bag, etc., became optional equipment before they are approved for original equipment installation. Kesler feels that the proposed right side wide-angle rear view mirror should be approved to be made available to the driver as an optional choice and that appropriate rules be made to cover such mirrors.

ID: nht92-8.41

DATE: February 28, 1992

FROM: Bill Gaines -- Engineer, Transfer Flow, Incorporated

TO: Wally Herger -- Congressman

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/27/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Wally Herger (A39; Std. 301); Also attached to letter dated 3/13/92 from Wally Herger to Nancy Bruce

TEXT:

The reason I am asking to speak with you on Saturday, February 29, 1992, involves my company's inability to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75 as the manufacturer. This standard has to do with required testing involving the vehicle's fuel system integrity. It is required testing if the vehicle in question has not been sold to the end user.

While we have no problem with the intent of this standard, we are very concerned with the inflexibility of testing and the high cost of performing these test.

We have been quoted $30,000.00 to perform one FMVSS 301 test. Of course, if it doesn't pass then we are required to redesign the fuel system, crash another vehicle and spend another $30,000.00.

If we were selling hundreds of thousands of the same tank, $30,000.00 would be inconsequential. However, if we only sell 50 of these tanks a year then the cost is ridiculous. If we make 600 different kinds of tanks a year, 30 of one style and 100 of another, like we do, then the cost for testing is unthinkable.

A completely different and less stringent structural test is required for vehicles over 10000 GVW and for vehicles under 10000 GVW that have been sold to the end user. We at Transfer Flow, perform these test as required. While they are not as expensive as the crash test, they do effectively demonstrate the structural integrity of the fuel tank and the components attached to it.

We have been in the fuel systems business for over nine years. In that time frame, we have designed over 600 different fuel systems for pick-ups, vans, motor homes, travel trailers and industrial equipment. We have written emissions certifications for companies such as Fleetwood, Oshkosh Truck, Gillig, Bluebird and many others. The California Air Resources Board refers other tank manufacturers to us, to help them submit emissions applications.

We want to provide our customers with safe fuel systems, but we must be given some flexibility in the testing requirements. As a small volume manufacture, we can't afford to perform the FMVSS 301-75 test. We need an alternative.

Again, we are not opposed to testing our product. There are many ways to demonstrate that a product meets the required specifications. Drop testing, vibration testing and finite analysis are just a few methods that can accomplish this task. The engineering analysis that we are capable of doing today was not even taught in the early seventies.

Since we have been unable on our own to alter this requirement for companies such as ourselves, we are asking for your assistance. Please give us a hand.

ID: nht92-8.42

DATE: February 28, 1992

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

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

TITLE: Re: General Motors Corporation; FMVSS 114; Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/22/92 from Paul J. Rice to Stephen E. Selander (A39; Std. 114)

TEXT:

General Motors Corporation (GM) is designing an electronic key locking ignition system which we would like to offer for sale in the near future. GM believes that this system meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 114 without using a conventional mechanical key. In view of the novelty of this approach, GM would like to have the concurrence of the NHTSA with our opinion.

FMVSS 114 S.3 Definitions includes the following definition of a "Key":

Key includes any other device designed and constructed to provide a method for operating a locking system which is designed and constructed to be operated by that device.

An electronic "Key" is consistent with the preamble to the Final Rule - FMVSS 114 (33 Fed.Reg. 6472 (1968)) where the following appears at the top of the middle column:

The term "key" is defined so as to include methods of activating the locking system other than the commonly accepted concept of a key.

This electronic key locking system would be operated by a key (an electronic code) entered and removed by the operator. When the key is entered into the locking system by the operator, a match is made with an electronic code stored in the system's memory. This match is analogous to the tumblers of a conventional lock cylinder matching the cut of a conventional key.

When a correct key match occurs, the person could then move the locking system out of the lock position to other positions such as accessory, off, on, or start, in order to activate the vehicle's engine, motor, or accessories.

With the locking system out of the lock position, the transmission can be shifted out of the "PARK" position in order to operate the vehicle. The transmission shift lever must be returned to the "PARK" position in order to place the locking system back into the lock position.

Placement of the locking system back into the lock position by the operator would automatically cause removal of the key from the system. At that time, re-entry of the correct key (electronic code) would be necessary to operate the vehicle.

SUMMARY

A key locking system, using an electronic key code other than a conventional mechanical key, has been developed which, GM believes, will meet the requirements of FMVSS 114.

However, GM requests the concurrence of the NHTSA regarding the definition of "Key" so that design work can continue and the system can be offered to the public in a timely manner.

If helpful, we would be pleased to demonstrate an example of the system under development.

If the agency has any questions or requires additional information, please contact me on (313) 974-1704.

ID: nht92-8.43

DATE: February 27, 1992

FROM: Kevin J. Stoll -- Technical Advisor, Russell Products Incorporated

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel FMVSS - 108, NHTSA

COPYEE: Thomas L. Russell

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to Kevin J. Stoll (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

My purpose for writing you today is that the "Office of Rulemaking" stated to me that I should address my questions directly to you via letter.

Russell Products is a multi-line distributor to the recreational vehicle and van conversion industry. We are currently selling third brake lights to the van and R.V. industry. We also are familiar with the standards that are in effect for all vehicles that are manufactured in our industry.

However, the purpose for this letter is that I am currently designing a third brake light for the truck cap and truck camper vehicles. Listed below are a few questions that I have not been able to find rulings on. I would appreciate any help or insight that you may have in obtaining the answers to these questions.

1. Are the LED (light emitting diode) being used for third brake light legal?

If so, what are the specifications so that they can be used as a third brake light?

2. a. Where are the truck manufacturers ie. GM, Ford, Dodge locating the third brake fight on pickup trucks?

b. What effect will this have on truck cap manufacturers and the dealer responsibility to the consumer?

c. Can the dealer wire directly to the existing third brake light harness used to light up the factory third brake light?

3. a. We have a customer that would like to mount a flush mounted third brake light in the rear glass window of a truck cap. This window is used also as the rear access door to get to the truck bed from the outside of the truck.

b. This would allow the third brake light to be moveable and not stationary. If a consumer would have an object in the bed of the truck with the window in the open position, allowing for the third brake light to be left in an upward position and no longer viewed from the rear.

Would this application be approved?

4. Could you please enter Russell Products, Inc. on your mailing lists for all future updated mailings on third brake lights passed or discussed at all committee meetings.

If you have any questions or would require additional information, please don't hesitate to call me at 1-800-545-5620. I appreciate your help in advance.

ID: nht92-8.44

DATE: February 25, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Phil Gray -- Inventor, Westech U.S.A. Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/13/92 from Phil Gray to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6925)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a product you have invented. The device is a flexible plastic stalk that reroutes the shoulder belt to improve the shoulder belt fit for children that have outgrown child safety seats. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our laws and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). This standard requires new motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts and requires that those belts meet specified fit and comfort requirements, as set forth in S7 of the standard. However, Standard No. 208 does not apply to aftermarket items that seek to alter belt fit and/or comfort. Hence, your company is not required to certify that this product complies with Standard No. 208 before offering the product for sale.

In addition, you are not required to get some sort of "approval" from this agency before offering this product for sale. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we 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. As stated above, this product is not subject to any safety standard, so your company does not have to make any certification.

Although none of our safety standards directly apply to this product, there are several provisions in the Safety Act that are relevant. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your belt positioning device 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. Your letter indicated that you were aware of this responsibility and your company would carry out any necessary recalls if problems should become apparent with this device when it is used by the public.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturer, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. There are two elements of design in a vehicle that might be

"rendered inoperative" by the use of your company's belt positioning device. One is the occupant protection afforded by belts that meet the specified fit and comfort requirements. The other element of design that could be rendered inoperative by the use of your belt positioning device is the burn resistance required by Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). The materials used in the interior of vehicles, including the seat belts, seat backs and cushions, trim panels, and headliner must comply with the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 to reduce deaths and injuries in the event of a fire in the vehicle's interior. If your belt positioning device renders inoperative the belt fit and comfort requirements specified in Standard No. 208 or does not comply with burn resistance requirements, it could not be installed in a vehicle by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop.

I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of NHTSA's regulations and provides information on how to obtain copies of those regulations.

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

Attachments

NHTSA information sheets, dated September, 1985 entitled:

Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations

(Text of attachment omitted)

ID: nht92-8.45

DATE: February 25, 1992

FROM: L. Louis Raring -- Raring & Lipoff

TO: Jack Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Motorcycle Helmet Law; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/92 from Paul J. Rice to L. Louis Raring (A39; Std. 218)

TEXT:

Our office represents numerous clients who are involved with the recently-enacted motorcycle helmet law in California which requires compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218. We have been asked to give advice to manufacturers of helmets, potential manufacturers of helmets and individuals who are receiving tickets for wearing improper helmets.

I have had discussions with Ron Engle, Division Chief for Safety Counter measures at the Department of Transportation, John Lee, Chief Engineer, and Cathy Demeter in the General Law Division. It is my understanding that the Department of Transportation does not approve helmets but is more of a policing organization which tests and recalls helmets on a random basis. No one has been able to direct me to any policy documents, such as rules and regulations in the Federal Register, which would outline just what the Department of Transportation does regarding Standard No. 218.

There is a popular misconception in California among drivers, enforcement officers and manufacturers that the Department of Transportation actually approves helmets. It is my understanding in talking to people within DOT that DOT does not approve helmets and this is left strictly to the manufacturer to certify.

We are requesting a letter from your office outlining what DOT's policy is and its involvement with Federal Standard No. 218. We would appreciate any reference to any rules or regulations we can look up and copies of any policy statements which will help us to document what DOT's position is regarding approval of helmets under Standard No. 218.

If you have any questions, please give me a call. We anxiously await your response to this request.

ID: nht92-8.46

DATE: February 24, 1992

FROM: Neil Friedkin -- Attorney at Law

TO: Erica Z. Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Fred Levinson Productions v. Sports Imports Inc. and Coachbuilders Ltd.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/13/92 from Paul J. Rice to Neil Friedkin (A39; S 108 (a)(1)(A); S 108 (a)(2)(A); S 108 (b)(1); Part 567)

TEXT:

I am the attorney for Fred Levinson Productions Inc. ("FLP"). In August of 1986, FLP leased a 1986 Mercedes 560 LEC from Sports Leasing. As part of the lease, Coachbuilders Ltd converted the vehicle from hardtop to convertible. The vehicle identification Number is WDBCA45D3GA270730.

Mr. Levinson is in litigation concerning the vehicle. In part, he alleges Coachbuilders did not RECERTIFY the vehicle after conversion and that the conversion did not conform with the standards of the Safety Act.

In the past, I have written to your office concerning what rules would be applicable to the conversion and whether Coachbuilders would have been required to recertify the vehicle. I also asked if any complaints had been made against Coachbuilders.

In response, you were kind enough to provide me with certain rules and regulations and with opinion letters you had issued in the past (copies of which are enclosed) on similar inquiries.

I am writing to you now to see if you can provide a similar opinion letter addressed to my client and the conversion of this Mercedes hardtop to convertible. If this is possible, or if you require further information, please contact me.

ID: nht92-8.47

DATE: February 21, 1992

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

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for the interpretation of photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/10/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Masashi Maekawa (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your answering letter dated Dec. 18, 1991 to our questions concerning the interpretation of photometer output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars dated Nov. 27, 1991.

We had some questions as follows regarding positions stated in the letter from NHTSA.

1. NHTSA stated in the letter dated Dec. 18, 1991 as follows;

" It is not possible to consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purpose of measuring the minimum photometrics required under standard No. 108."

But another letter from NHTSA dated June 28, 1985 addressed to Mazda (North America), Inc. stated as follows;

" We also discuss the implications of a stop lamp and tail lamp constructed so that a portion is fixed to the body of the vehicle adjacent to the decklid opening and the remaining portion is mounted on the outboard area of the decklid.

Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position, that is to say, with the tailgate, hatch, or decklid closed."

We realized the noticeable difference between those two letters. We have been designing and testing lamps until now according to the interpretation dated June 28, 1985.

2. As the interpretation of the testing method concerning photometer output requirements of lamps mounted onto both the moving vehicle part and the rigid vehicle part is not written in FMVSS No. 108, we have been designing those lamps to comply with photometer output requirements by using both lamps mounted onto the moving vehicle part (Lamp-B) and the rigid vehicle part (Lamp-A), in accordance with the sentence "The device shall be mounted in its normal operating position." of J (Photometry) of SAE J575e incorporated in FMVSS No. 108.

For the reason mentioned above, we would like to ask whether your stance concerning the interpretation of those lamps has been changed or not.

Kindly let us know your opinion concerning the above matters.

ID: nht92-8.48

DATE: February 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James Hansen -- Model E Concepts

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/20/91 from James C. Hansen to Office of the Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 6832)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter inquiring about the applicability of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to the alteration of previously certified new and used motor vehicles. You stated that your company is considering the alteration of motor vehicles to a hybrid version of an electric powered vehicle. In altering the current vehicles, your company would remove the internal combustion engine and associated components (including the transmission on some vehicles) and replace them with an electric battery. To accommodate the added weight, you would change the suspension and brake systems and add aluminum beams to the vehicle; however, your company does not plan to cut or otherwise change the vehicle's original unibody structure. You indicated that you believe NHTSA's regulations would only require your company to affix to the vehicle an additional label stating its modified gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and gross axle weight rating (GAWR). I welcome this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; 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 Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The answer to your question depends upon whether the vehicles your company modifies are new (that is, the vehicles have not yet been sold to the first retail purchaser) or used (vehicles that have already been sold to and used by the first retail purchaser). With respect to your company's modifications of new vehicles, your company would be an "alterer" for the purposes of NHTSA's laws and regulations. 49 CFR S567.7 requires an alterer of a new vehicle to supplement the original manufacturer's certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. This label added by the alterer must state that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. The added label must set forth the alterer's name and the date of the alterations. In addition, if after alteration, the vehicle classification or the vehicle's GVWR or GAWR differs from the information shown on the original certification label, then the alterer's label must reflect this new information.

Your letter suggests that you believe your company must simply add a label showing the modified GVWR and GAWR of these vehicles. That is not entirely correct. Your company must also certify that the altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. An alterer must have some

independent basis for this certification. This does not however mean that an alterer must conduct crash testing, even with respect to standards that include dynamic test requirements. Certifications of continuing compliance for altered vehicles may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manufacturer in a "body builder's guide."

It may be difficult for your company to certify that the hybrid electric-powered vehicles your company produces will continue to comply with Standards No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and the other crashworthiness safety standards that measure compliance during or after a 30 miles per hour rigid barrier crash test. The difficulty would arise because the weight your company would add to the vehicles during the alteration may result in more overall deformation of the vehicle during the crash test. To address these potential difficulties for electric vehicles, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on whether and how the agency should modify its safety standards to account for electric vehicles. This advance notice was published on December 27, 1991 (56 FR 67038; copy enclosed). The comment period for this notice closes on March 27, 1992. Your company may wish to respond to our request for comments on this subject.

Different requirements apply if you modify used vehicles. In that case, the requirements in S567.7 would not apply, because that regulation applies only to motor vehicles before the first retail purchase of the vehicle. Hence, your company is not required to affix an alterer's label to those used vehicles you convert into hybrid electric vehicles. Instead, the relevant requirements are set forth in S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section of Federal law provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly "render inoperative," in whole or in 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.

For your information, I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of the relevant NHTSA regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-8.49

DATE: February 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard W. Balsama, Esq.

TITLE: None

TEXT:

In response to your inquiry concerning the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment offered for sale in the territories of the United States, I refer you to the definition of "State" in section 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391):

(8) "State" includes each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, and American Samoa.

Section 108 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) in turn provides that a new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment may not be offered for sale in the United States unless it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Based on these provisions, the answer to your inquiry is that the vehicles and equipment in question must conform to the standards.