ID: nht95-7.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 16, 1995

FROM: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to William Shapiro (A43; Part 581)

TEXT: Volvo Cars of North America, Inc., Rockleigh, New Jersey and Volvo Car Corporation, Gothenburg, Sweden, requests confirmation of our interpretation of CFR 49 Section 581.

In Part 581.5 "Requirements" it is stated:

"Each vehicle shall meet the damage criteria of S581.5(c)(1) through 581.5(c)(9) when impacted by . . ."

S581.5(c)(1) through (6) give criteria for components and systems that may not be damaged or shall remain in adjustment in a low speed impact. This covers lamps, hood, trunk, fuel and cooling systems, exhaust systems, propulsion, suspension, steering, braking systems.

S581.5(c)(7) requires that the vehicle shall not touch the test device with a force exceeding 2000 pounds except on the impact ridge.

S581.5(c)(8) requires that there shall be no separation of surface materials, paint polymeric coatings or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours . . ., EXCEPT WHEN SUCH DAMAGE OCCURS TO THE BUMPER'S FACE BAR AND ASSOCIATED FASTENERS THAT DIRECTLY ATTACH THE BUMPER FACE TO THE CHASSIS FRAME.

S581.5(C)(9) states that there shall be no breakage or release of fasteners or joints.

Volvo is, at the moment, contemplating a device that will be attached to the bumper face bar. This device has no function as to mitigate the effects of a low speed collision but is used for other purposes.

In a low speed collision, this device may be damaged or destroyed.

Volvo believes that this is in compliance with the requirements in Part 581 for the following reasons:

the device is not a component or system described in S581.5(c)(1) through 581.5(c)(6) and therefore it being damaged or destroyed will not lead to any change in performance of the above components or system.

the device will be touched only by the impact ridge. This complies with S581.5(c)(7).

the device is, for this definition, part of the bumper face bar. This means for compliance with S581.5(c)(8) and S581.5(c)(9).

If additional information is required on this matter, do not hesitate to contact me at 201-767-4772 or Stephen Kraitz of my staff at 201-768-7300, extension 7249 at your convenience.

ID: nht95-7.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 17, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Brester -- Director of Product Engineering, Velvac Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/25/95 LETTER FROM ROBERT R. BRESTER TO STEVE WOOD (OCC 11116)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brester:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning how Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, affects the brake products you sell. According to your letter:

Velvac Inc. manufactures and sells brake components and power braking systems for trailers and truck tag axles. These brake systems are not part of the primary vehicle braking system. In the case of a tag axle, our customers are retrofitting a standard vehicle with an additional axle to increase its load carrying capacity. In the case of a trailer, our system may be the only source of braking.

The brake components Velvac supplies generally include control valving, brake boosters and various types of hoses and fittings. These items can be sold both as components and as complete power brake kits. (See attached catalogue drawings . . . )'

You stated that Mr. Richard Carter of this agency advised you that different combinations of braking components may be used to achieve the braking performance requirements of Standard No. 105, and that the responsibility of certifying vehicles to Standard No. 105 lies in the hands of your customers. This information is correct. However, you should be aware that some of the components listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, and must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with that standard. A further discussion of the issues raised by your letter is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue several vehicle and/or equipment standards related to braking performance. These standards include the aforementioned Standards No. 105 and No. 106, as well as ones on air brake systems, motorcycle brake systems, and motor vehicle brake fluids.

You specifically asked about Standard No. 105. That standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic service brake systems.

If your brake products are installed as original equipment on a new vehicle subject to Standard No. 105, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the products installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of that standard (as well as all other applicable safety standards). If your brake products are added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an "alterer" under our regulations, and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If your products are installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a repair shop, the repair shop would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as the hydraulic brake system. n1

n1 The make inoperative provision does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSSs. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Assuming you do not manufacture or alter new vehicles, you do not have a responsibility to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105. However, I note that some of the brake products listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106. That standard specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake house, end fittings and assemblies. Standard No. 106 applies not only to new vehicles, as is the case with Standard No. 105, but also to brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies that are sold individually or in kit form. Manufacturers of these items must certify that the equipment complies with Standard No. 106, and persons selling these items must sell only certified items.

NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to statutory requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your products are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes various responsibilities of motor vehicle manufacturers under our regulations, and information on how you can obtain copies of our standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 17, 1995

FROM: Jim Young -- Wheeled Coach

TO: John Womack

TITLE: FMVSS Compliance

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/17/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Jim Young (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Wheeled Coach is an Ambulance manufacturer and is in need of a response to the following issues regarding customer specifications for options incorporated into, or in addition to FMVSS lighting.

"Brake override circuit for rear facing warning lights." The rear warning lights flash as warning lights until the brakes are applied, at which time they become steady burn. This option is in addition to the standard brake lights. If this is acceptable, should the lights be required to meet all requirements of stop lights? (ie.; maximum luminous intensity, color, etc...)

Brake Enhancer" Standard or additional stop lights are made to flash on/off several times before going steady burn.

"Back-up alert strobes" Rear facing high intensity strobe lights that are activated when the gearshift lever is placed into reverse gear.

Taillight Flashers" Taillights or brake lights are flashed alternate to backup lights until brakes are applied, at which time they go steady burn. The option at times may be requested to only work of the rear doors on the ambulance are open.

ID: nht95-7.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Arthur N. Arschin

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/26/95 LETTER FROM ARTHUR N. ARSCHIN TO WILART BANKS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Arschin:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking whether the manufacturer identification numbers assigned to the Vee Rubber Company, Ltd. and the Vee Rubber International Company, Ltd. remain valid. The short answer is yes, if the plants remain in production.

49 CFR 574.5 requires each new or newly retreaded tire sold in the United States to have a tire identification number (TIN) labeled by the manufacturer on one sidewall of the tire. The TIN is intended to assist NHTSA to identify the production source of a tire in the event of a defect or noncompliance. The TIN must include a manufacturer identification mark (MIM) issued by NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR 574.6. NHTSA issues a separate MIM for each plant that currently produces or retreads tires, and a plant can only have one MIM.

Once NHTSA issues a MIM, the mark remains in effect as long as the plant to which it applies remains in production. In the event the plant ceases production, the mark assigned to that plant may not be further assigned or otherwise used by the manufacturer or anyone else. If the plant ceases production, NHTSA should be promptly notified so that the mark can be cancelled.

With regard to your client rubber companies, the MIMs assigned to Vee Rubber Company, Ltd., YRU for Plant No. 1 and YRV for Plant No. 2, remain in effect if those plants are still in production. The MIMs assigned to Vee Rubber International Company, Ltd., 4A for Plant No. 1 and 5A for Plant No. 2 remain in effect if those plants are still in production.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/28/95 LETTER FROM LAWRENCE A. BEYER TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR (OCC 11160)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Beyer:

This responds to your August 28, 1995, "Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance". You state that "the noncompliance relates to" 49 CFR Part 592.

The effect of an inconsequentiality determination is to relieve a manufacturer of its obligation to notify and remedy when a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or a safety related defect is determined to exist. The failures you attributed to your client as a registered importer under part 592 do not encompass a failure to bring vehicles into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or the existence of a safety related defect in vehicles that it has imported. Therefore, there is no legal basis for your "petition". Please read 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, and 49 CFR Part 556.

The proper forum for your arguments is in response to any penalty the agency may propose to impose on your client for its failure to meet the requirements of Part 592.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-7.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Glenn J. Vick, -- National Account Manager, Marketing and Sales Office, Commercial Truck Vehicle Center, Ford Automotive Operations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/15/95 LETTER FROM GLENN J. VICK TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vick:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School bus body joint strength. You explain that Ford is planning to introduce a new E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab for use by final-stage manufacturers in producing large school buses. You ask how Standard No. 221 applies to the chassis.

I am pleased to clarify our regulations for you. As explained below, Ford has responsibilities as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, but these do not include certifying that a school bus completed on your chassis will meet Standard No. 221.

As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Ford's responsibilities are described in section 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Ford must furnish certain information with the incomplete vehicle at or before the vehicle's delivery to the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer. (We will refer to the document(s) containing this information as "the incomplete vehicle document.") This information includes the vehicle type(s) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriately be manufactured, and a listing, by number, of each FMVSS that applies to any of the listed vehicle types. Further, Ford must follow this listing with one of the following three types of statements, as applicable, for each standard:

1. A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which Ford specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard; or,

3. A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that Ford makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In accordance with these requirements, your incomplete vehicle document must indicate that the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured into a school bus. It must also list, by number, each FMVSS that applies to school buses, including Standard No. 221. n1 n1 Please note that NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567, provides an incomplete vehicle manufacturer the option of assuming legal responsibility for certifying the compliance of the vehicle as finally manufactured. See 49 CFR section 567.5(e).

As a practical matter, the third statement is the one likely to be used by a chassis manufacturer, with regard to Standard No. 221. The standard requires school bus body panel joints to be capable of holding the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel. It is likely that the conformity with the standard would not be substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle.

Nevertheless, we would encourage Ford to consult with the finalstage manufacturer on its work completing the school bus. A completed vehicle's conformity to the FMVSSs can be substantially affected by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final-stage manufacturer. Moreover, the compliance of the school bus with certain FMVSSs, such as the braking standard (FMVSS No. 105) and the fuel tank integrity standard (FMVSS No. 301), is highly dependent on the design of the incomplete vehicle. Some final-stage manufacturers may need information from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, in addition to the incomplete vehicle document, to assist them in properly completing the vehicle.

I hope this responds to your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Winston Sharples -- President, Cantab Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharples

I enclose a copy of an order of the Administrator granting the petition by Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The exemption from Standard No. 208 will expire on September 1, 1997, and that for Standard No. 214 on September 1, 1998.

In accordance with agency regulations on the subject, within 30 days after your receipt of this letter please provide the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with a copy of the certification label reflecting the exemption that will be used on Cantab's vehicles (49 CFR 555.9(a)).

We have received your letter of August 17, 1995, which admits that Cantab manufactured and sold nine vehicles manufactured after the expiration of its previous exemption that did not conform with Standard No. 208, and which enclosed a petition for a determination of inconsequentiality on this matter. This is currently under review.

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

Enclosure

ACTION: Issuance of Federal Register Notice Granting Cantab's Petition for Temporary Exemption From Standards Nos. 208 and 214 John Womack (K. WEINSTEIN) Acting Chief Counsel

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards

Attached for your signature is a Federal Register notice granting the petition by Cantab Motors for a temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, and the side impact protection requirements of Standard No. 214. The basis of the grant is that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to meet the standards.

Cantab imports shells of Morgan sports cars from England, and installs propane engines and drive trains in the US; for this reason, we consider Cantab rather than Morgan as the manufacturer. In the year preceding the filing of its exemption petition it produced only 9 such cars. It has cumulative net losses approaching $ 93,000 for the last three fiscal years. It has been working with Morgan to develop vehicles that will be equipped with airbags meeting Standard No. 208, and provide side impact protection meeting Standard No. 214.

Because the components that must be modified for conformance are under the control of Morgan rather than Cantab, the company is dependent upon Morgan's efforts. Cantab asked for only a 2-year exemption from Standard No. 208, indicating that it is optimistic that its cars will conform in less than the 3 years it could have asked for. However, it appears to require the full 3 years for Standard No. 214.

Any threat to safety that would be presented by an exempted vehicle would be minimal because they are few in number, and are represented as conforming to earlier versions of the two standards.

No comments were received on the application.

Attachment

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Docket No. 95-53; Notice 2

Cantab Motors, Ltd.

Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption From

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and 214

Cantab Motors, Ltd., of Round Hill, Va., applied for a temporary exemption of two years from paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, and for three years from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection. The basis of the application was that compliance will cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application was published on July 14, 1995, and an opportunity afforded for comment (60 FR 36328).

The make and type of passenger car for which exemption was requested is the Morgan open car or convertible. Morgan Motor Company ("Morgan"), the British manufacturer of the Morgan, has not offered its vehicle for sale in the United States since the early days of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the nine years it has been in business, the applicant has bought 35 incomplete Morgan cars from the British manufacturer, and imported them as motor vehicle equipment, completing manufacture by the addition of engine and fuel system components. They differ from their British counterparts, not only in equipment items and modifications necessary for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but also in their fuel system components and engines, which are propane fueled. As the party completing manufacture of the vehicle, Cantab certifies its conformance to all applicable Federal safety and bumper standards. The vehicle completed by Cantab in the U.S. is deemed sufficiently different from the one produced in Britain that NHTSA considers Cantab the manufacturer, not a converter, even though the brand names are the same.

Morgan itself produced 478 cars in 1994, while in the year preceding the filing of its petition in June 1995, the applicant produced 9 cars for sale in the United States. Since the granting of its original exemption in 1990, Cantab has invested $ 38,244 in research and development related to compliance with Federal safety and emissions standards. The applicant has experienced a net loss in each of its last three fiscal (calendar) years, with a cumulative net loss for this period of $ 92,594.

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 208

Cantab received NHTSA Exemption No. 90-3 from S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208, which expired May 1, 1993 (55 FR 21141). When this exemption was granted in 1990, the applicant had concluded that the most feasible way for it to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 was by means of an automatically deploying belt. In the period following the granting of the exemption, Morgan and the applicant created a mock-up of the Morgan passenger compartment with seat belt hardware and motor drive assemblies. In time, it was determined that the belt track was likely to deform, making it inoperable. The program was abandoned, and Morgan and Cantab embarked upon research leading to a dual airbag system.

According to the applicant, Morgan tried without success to obtain a suitable airbag system from Mazda, Jaguar, Rolls-Royce and Lotus. As a result, Morgan is now developing its own system for its cars, and "[as] many as twelve different sensors, of both the impact and deceleration (sic) type, have been tested and the system currently utilizes a steering wheel from a Jaguar and the Land Rover Discovery steering column." Redesign of the passenger compartment is underway, involving knee bolstering, a supplementary seat belt system, antisubmarining devices, and the seats themselves. Morgan informed the applicant on May 2, 1995, that it had thus far completed 10 tests on the mechanical components involved "and are now carrying out a detailed assessment of air bag operating systems and columns before we will be in a position to undertake the full set of appropriate tests to approve the installation in our vehicles."

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 214

Concurrently, Morgan and the applicant have been working towards meeting the dynamic test and performance requirements for side impact protection, for which Standard No. 214 has established a phase-in schedule. Although Morgan fits its car with a dual roll bar system specified by Cantab, and Cantab installs door bars and strengthens the door latch receptacle and striker plate, the system does not yet conform to the new requirements of Standard No. 214, and the applicant has asked for an exemption of three years. It does, however, meet the previous side door strength requirements of the standard. Were the phase-in requirement of S8 applied to it, calculated on the basis of its limited production, only very few cars would be required to meet the standard.

Safety and Public Interest Arguments

Because of the small number of vehicles that the applicant produces and its belief that they are used for pleasure rather than daily for business commuting or on long trips, and because of the three-point restraints and side impact protection currently offered, the applicant argued that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with safety. It brought to the agency's attention two recent oblique front impact accidents at estimated speeds of 30 mph and 65 mph respectively in which the restrained occupants "emerged unscathed."

Further, the availability "of this unique vehicle . . . will help maintain the existing diversity of motor vehicles available to the U.S. consumer." Finally, "the distribution of [this] propane-fueled vehicle has contributed to the national interest by promoting the development of motor systems by using alternate fuels."

No comments were received on the application.

In adding only engine and fuel system components to incomplete vehicles, the applicant is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles in the conventional sense. It does not produce the front end structural components, instrument panel, or steering wheel, areas of the motor vehicle whose design is critical for compliance with the airbag requirements of Standard No. 208. These are manufactured by Morgan, and the applicant is necessarily dependent upon Morgan to devise designs that will enable conformance with Standard No. 208. The applicant has been monitoring Morgan's progress, and that company is engaging in testing and design activities necessary for eventual conformance. The fact that the applicant is requesting only a two-year exemption, rather than three, indicates its belief that complying operator and passenger airbags will at last be fitted to its cars by the end of this period.

Similarly, the applicant is dependent upon the structural design of its vehicle for compliance with Standard No. 214. As with Standard No. 208, Morgan and the applicant are working towards conformance, though apparently it will not be achieved within two years. In both instances, however, the applicant is conscious of the need to conform and has been taking steps to accomplish it. Although the company's total expenditure of $ 38,244 in the last five years to meet emission and safety requirements is low, the small number of cars produced for sale in the United States in the last year, nine, would not make available substantial funds to the company, and its cumulative net losses of $ 92,594 indicate an operation whose financial existence is precarious.

Applicant's cars are equipped with manual three-point restraint systems and comply with previous side impact intrusion requirements. Because applicant produces only one line of vehicles, it cannot take advantage of the phase-in requirement. Given the existing level of safety of the vehicles and the comparatively small exposure of the small number of them that would be produced under an exemption, there would appear to be an insignificant risk to traffic safety by providing an exemption. The public interest is served by maintaining the existence of small businesses and by creating awareness of alternative power sources.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that to require immediate compliance with Standards Nos. 208 and 214 would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has in good faith attempted to meet the standards, and that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.

Accordingly, the applicant is hereby granted NHTSA Exemption No. 95-2, from paragraph S4.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, expiring September 1, 1997, and from 49 CFR 571.214 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection, expiring September 1, 1998.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on SEP 7 1995

Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator

BILLING CODE: 4910-59-P

ID: nht95-7.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 24, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jonathan P. Reynolds, Esq., -- Cosco, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JONATHAN P. REYNOLDS TO DEIRDRE FUJITA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This responds to your letter asking us to confirm that we consider your submission, dated August 3, 1995, as a timely petition for reconsideration of a final rule published July 6, 1995 (Docket No. 74-09, Notice 42). You enclosed a copy of a Federal Express document to show that your submission was received by NHTSA within the time period provided for such petitions under 49 CFR @ 553.35.

The Federal Express document, which shows the signature of an agency employee, supports a finding that your submission was timely filed. NHTSA is processing your submission as a petition for reconsideration of the subject rule.

If you have any further questions about your petition, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Orlando Ferreira -- Orion Bus Industries Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/18/95 LETTER FROM ORLANDO FERREIRA TO J. MEDLIN (OCC 11221)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ferreira:

This responds to your FAX message to Mr. Jere Medlin of this agency, asking whether your "master switch" on a transit bus must be illuminated pursuant to Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. Your master switch has four controls, "engine stop," "run," "lights," and "park." In a telephone conversation with Mr. Medlin, you explained that your "run" control functions as an "engine start" control, and your "park" control functions as a "clearance lamps systems" control.

As explained below, Standard No. 101 specifies illumination for the "engine stop" and "park" controls, but not for the "run" and "light" controls. In addition, there are identification requirements for those controls.

Your drawing of the master switch shows that the switch resembles a tuning knob on a radio. Like a knob, the switch can be turned to each of the above four positions, one position at a time. Because turning the master switch knob to each position activates the described function, we would consider each position to be a separate control.

You write that the master switch will be placed on a "driver's side control panel," a location that subjects controls to Standard No. 101's illumination requirements. S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 (referencing Tables 1 and 1(a) Identification and Illumination of Controls), specifies that if:

* a control is provided, * is listed in column 1 of either Table 1 or 1(a), * and is accompanied by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4, Illumination, of the table,

the "identification . . . of any control" shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated.

"Engine stop" control The identification of the "engine stop" control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. This is because in Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine stop" control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4 of each table.

"Park" control Two issues are raised by your "park" control. The first relates to Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard, the control that regulates the parking lights is the "clearance lamps system" control, rather than the "park" control. Since your control regulates the parking lights, it must be identified as "Marker Lamps", "MK Lps" or (as you propose) with the symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1. Labeling the control as "park" could confuse some persons into thinking "park" is a transmission park position.

The second issue is the illumination requirement. The identification of the control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. As noted above, your park control has to be identified as "Marker Lamps" or "MK Lps". In Table 1, the control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4. Thus, the control must be illuminated.

"Run" control The same two issues discussed in our answer directly above, pertain to this control. First is Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard the control that will start the engine must be identified as "engine start" (rather than "run") as described in both Tables 1 and 1(a), when it is separate from the key locking system (as is yours).

The control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine start" control (which is the correct identification of the control) is specified in column 1, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

"Lights" control The same two issues discussed above are relevant here. The illustration you enclosed with your letter shows that you use both the word "Lights" and an identifying symbol to identify your Lights control. We are not sure that you are correctly using the symbol. The symbol you use is listed in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 as that for the master lighting switch. A master lighting switch regulates all exterior vehicle lights. If your "lights" control only regulates headlamps and taillamps, and not all exterior vehicle lights, please designate the headlamps and taillamps as specified in column 3 of Table 1.

The "lights" control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "lights" control is specified in column 2, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

ID: nht95-7.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hugh J. Bode, Esq. -- Reminger & Reminger

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM HUGH J. BODE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bode:

This responds to your letter concerning whether 49 U.S.C. @@ 30101 et seq. (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) requires a motor vehicle manufacturer to ensure that its vehicle continues to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) after the first retail purchase of the vehicle.

You specifically ask about FMVSS No. 124, "Accelerator Control Systems," and its application to a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck. It appears from the questions you ask that corrosion developed inside the carburetor of the pickup truck at some point during the life of the vehicle, such that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

You asked us to "confirm the accuracy" of a number of statements. Your first statement, concerning the application of the FMVSSs generally, is as follows:

As we understand it, former @ 108(a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conformity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. Safety Act former @ 108 (b) (1), 49 U.S.C. @ 30112 (b) (1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former @ 108(a) (2) (A), 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

Your general understanding is correct. However, a manufacturer has responsibilities in addition to those in @ 30112, that may bear upon on "continuing compliance" of its vehicle. Under @@ 30118-30122 of our statute, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge.

This is not to say that the development of the corrosion in the carburetor necessarily constitutes a safety-related defect. Rather, we acknowledge the possibility of such a finding in certain circumstances, such as where the corrosion developed unreasonably quickly in the vehicle and the problem was such that it could lead to crashes involving injuries or fatalities.

State law could also be relevant to this issue. For example, as part of its vehicle inspection requirements, a State could require that the accelerator control systems on vehicles "continue to comply" with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

With the above discussion in mind, I will now address your other four questions on Standard No. 124.

Question 1. We ask that NHTSA confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle.

As explained in our answer above, your understanding is correct with regard to our requirements (49 U.S.C. @ 30112). There may be State requirements that apply.

Question 2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in-service conditions, corrosion developed inside the carburetor so the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124.

Your understanding is essentially correct. As permitted by Federal law, Chrysler sold the truck based upon its own certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 124. That corrosion developed in the system may or may not be relevant with respect to the existence of a safety-related defect.

Question 3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5.

While your understanding is essentially correct, note that Standard No. 124 and other motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards.

Question 4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance.

Standard No. 124 does not specify a test for corrosion resistance. It is unclear what you mean by "durability." The requirements of the standard must be met when the engine "is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between - 40 degrees F. and + 125 degrees F. . ." (S5) In addition to the performance regulated by Standard No. 124, each manufacturer must ensure that its motor vehicle does not have a safety-related defect.

If you have any questions about the information provided above, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.