ID: 3165yy

Mr. Ken Hanna
Lectric Limited, Inc.
7322 S. Archer Road
Justice, Illinois 60458

Dear Mr. Hanna:

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

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. l08 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. l08, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref.# Std. 108 D. 7/29/91

ID: 3166yy

Mr. Wayne Trueman
BX-100 International
2550 Appian Way, Suite 211
Pinole, CA 94564

Dear Mr. Trueman:

This responds to your recent inquiry about installing your brake equalizer on new school buses and retrofitting this device on used school buses. A brake equalizer is a valve system that proportions the brake pressure between front and rear brakes. After explaining that California law provides that school bus brake systems may be modified only with the written approval of the school bus chassis manufacturer, you asked whether other states have similar requirements about written authorization. You also asked whether there are any special regulations pertaining to school buses that need to be considered prior to installing or retrofitting your product into school bus air brake systems.

I regret that we are unable to provide information concerning state requirements in this area. However, you may be able to obtain the information you desire by contacting individual state directors of pupil transportation. I have enclosed a list of those state officials, as published in School Bus Fleet magazine in January 199l.

I can, however, explain Federal requirements that are relevant to installing your product in new and used school buses. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about brake equalizers. However, since this device is tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses (including school buses), and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If your brake equalizer is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including FMVSS No. 121. (see 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. (49 CFR 567.7)

If the device is installed on a used vehicle (i.e., retrofitted) by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not 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. (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A))

You may wish to review the Federal Highway Administration's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which sets forth inspection and maintenance requirements for commercial motor vehicles, including some school buses. (49 CFR Parts 393 and 396.)

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure /Ref: 121 d:9/l6/9l

ID: 3167yy

Mr. Brett Reed
Design Engineer
Imo Industries, Inc.
Morse Controls Division
21 Clinton Street
Hudson, OH 44236-2899

Dear Mr. Reed:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, as it relates to electronic transmission shift controls that operate automatic transmissions used in heavy duty trucks and RV's and on solenoid operated powershift transmissions used in various on and off highway vehicles. You asked whether "the intent of [section S3.l.3 of the standard] is to render the engine starter inoperative when the transmission is in a forward or reverse drive gear or when the shift lever . . . is in such a gear." As discussed below, Standard No. 102 expressly provides that the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following provides our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S3.l.3 of Standard No. 102 reads as follows:

S3.1.3 Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

The standard thus expressly provides that the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

You state in your letter that "(t)he interests of public safety will be best served by requiring that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission itself, not the transmission shift lever, is in a forward or reverse drive gear." According to your letter, with the introduction of electronic shift systems and fully electronic transmissions, the connection between the shift lever and the transmission is rarely performed by direct mechanical means, and there is a possibility that the shift lever position may not match the gear currently engaged by the transmission in situations where the transmission control circuitry overrides the shift lever selection in the interest of safety, transmission protection or other criteria related to specific applications. You state that any attempt to artificially match the electronic shift lever's position to the gear currently enaged by the transmission in such override situations involves added cost and complexity, as well as safety and reliability concerns. You also argue that requiring the shift lever to be moved to neutral when the transmission itself is already in neutral due to some override condition imposes unnecessary safety hazards in some applications.

ID: 3170yy

Jeffrey P. Shimp, Engineer
Fleet Engineering & Q.A.
Transportation Department
Baltimore Gas and Electric
Charles Center
P.O. Box 1475
Baltimore, MD 21203-1475

Dear Mr. Shimp:

This responds to your letter of September 17, 1991, regarding the addition of a seat to your company's cargo vans. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of Federal law for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that each of their new vehicles or new items of equipment complies with all applicable safety standards at the time the product is delivered to the first purchaser in good faith for purposes other than resale.

After a vehicle is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Please note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Therefore, Baltimore Gas and Electric may install additional seats in the cargo vans it owns without violating the "render inoperative" provision or any other provisions of the Safety Act, providing Baltimore Gas and Electric performs the work themselves.

However, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that owners can make to their own vehicles. You should contact the State of Maryland to learn if it has enacted any laws or regulations that apply to your planned modifications to your vans. In addition, you may wish to consult with an attorney familiar with the law in the State of Maryland regarding potential liability for your company in connection with adding a seat to these vans.

Finally, although Federal law does not regulate your company's planned addition of seats to its vehicles, we urge you to carefully consider the safety issues that would arise if your company proceeds with the installation of these additional seats. Specifically, this agency encourages your company to select and install any additional seats in a way that will not degrade occupant protection, and to install a safety belt for those additional seats, so that your employees using the additional seat will be protected in the event of a crash.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:l0/9/9l

ID: 3192yy

Mr. Martin L. Marinoff
103 Turner Lane
Hendersonville, NC 28739

Dear Mr. Marinoff:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You stated that you believe the standard requires vehicles to have a warning light system that indicates loss of pressure or low fluid level in the braking system and asked if this belief is correct.

Your understanding about Standard No. 105 is correct. I have enclosed a copy of that standard for your information. The requirements for brake system indicator lamps are set forth at section S5.3 of the standard.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:105 d:l0/23/9l

ID: 3193o

Spencer A. Darby
State-Lite Mfg. Co.
6220-30 Gross Point Rd
Niles, IL 60648

Dear Mr. Darby:

This is a response to your letter asking for an interpretation of Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR /571.125). I apologize for the delay in this response. You were particularly interested in learning how Standard 125 affects the use of warning devices for vehicles that are 80 inches wide, and that travel in interstate commerce.

Before I answer your specific questions, I would like to present some background information about the authority of this agency which may help you better to understand my answers. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency authority to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. When a standard is established for items of motor vehicle equipment, such as Standard 125 is with respect to warning devices, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that "no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction, or import into the United States" any warning device manufactured after the effective date of Standard 125 that does not comply with Standard 125. Accordingly, Standard 125 regulates the manufacture, distribution, and sale of warning devices.

Note that Standard 125 does not regulate the use of warning devices, because the Safety Act does not give this agency any authority to regulate the operator or operation of any vehicle. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does have authority to regulate some motor vehicle operators and operations. Thus, to the extent that you have any questions about possible Federal regulations regarding the use of warning devices, you should address those questions to the Chief Counsel of the Federal Highway Administration, located in Room 4213, 400 7th Street, Washington DC 20590. I can only answer questions about how Standard 125 affects your company as a manufacturer of warning devices.

Your questions involve the correct interpretation of S5.1.5 of Standard 125, which reads as follows: S5.1.5. Each warning device shall have instructions for its erection and display. (a) The instructions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed. (b) Instructions for each warning device shall include a recommendation that the driver activate the vehicular hazard warning signal lamps before leaving the vehicle to erect the warning device. (c) Instructions shall include the illustration depicted in Figure 3 indicating recommended positioning.

Figure 3, to which S5.1.5(c) refers, shows a disabled vehicle on the side of the road with the warning device positioned one hundred feet to the rear of the vehicle.

Your first question was why Figure 3 in Standard 125 shows a vehicle with only one warning device behind the disabled vehicle, since the FHWA requires vehicles over 80 inches wide to carry three warning devices. The answer is that Standard 125 applies to warning devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, not just those that are over 80 inches wide. Thus, the postioning shown for the warning device in Figure 3 is a recommendation for the proper positioning of a single warning device carried in any vehicle. I note that NHTSA originally proposed to require seven different Figures showing recommended positioning of warning devices for different vehicle types on various highway configurations. In the final rule establishing Standard 125, NHTSA decided that a single figure was sufficient to show the user how to position an erected warning device behind any vehicle type on any highway configuration. See 37 FR 5038, March 9, 1972.

As a part of your first question, you stated that your company includes figures showing how to position three warning devices for a disabled truck on a divided highway and on a non-divided highway in addition to Figure 3. You asked if these additional figures are permitted by Standard 125. The answer to this question is yes. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to provide additional information, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. In this case, we have no reason to believe that vehicle operators would be confused or misled by information about how to position three warning devices if they have them. Therefore, Standard 125 does not prohibit the inclusion of these additional figures in your instructions.

Your second question was whether you are required to attach the instructions to the warning device itself, on warning devices sold for use with vehicles under 80 inches wide. The answer to your question is yes. S5.1.5(a) explicitly states: "The instructions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed." This requirement applies to all warning devices, not just to those for use by vehicles more than 80 inches wide. Thus, if the instructions were located on the inside cover of the container, as suggested in your letter, the warning device would not comply with Standard 125.

Your third question was whether NHTSA should amend Standard 125 to include additional illustrative figures showing recommended positioning for warning devices used in vehicles over 80 inches wide. We do not believe there is any reason to do so. As noted above, NHTSA proposed adopting seven figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices, but determined in the final rule that the single figure provided sufficient information to show users how to position the warning device in relation to any disabled vehicle. As also noted above, manufacturers of warning devices are permitted to include additional illustrative figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices with particular vehicle types on particular highways.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:125 d:ll/7/88

ID: 3193yy

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
Regulations Manager, Government Relations
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 E. Imperial Hwy.
P.O. Box 1100
Brea, CA 92622-1100

Dear Mr. Bush: This responds to your letter of September 6, 1991, to Mr. Vinson, asking whether a vehicle you are developing would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am pleased to be able to explain our law and regulations for you.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. It is important that you understand that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on our understanding of the information presented in your letter to us. These tentative statements about the vehicle's classification may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the vehicle referenced in your letter could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." In your letter, you state that the vehicle's chassis should be considered a truck chassis because it "was originally designed to provide cargo-carrying capability as well as to permit rough road and off the road vehicle operation." Additionally, you state that the approach and departure angles and the running clearance dimensions for this vehicle are more similar to other vehicles which have been classified by their manufacturers as multipurpose passenger vehicles than vehicles that have been classified as passenger cars. Based upon this description, it appears to us that this vehicle could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. The version of your letter that has been placed in the public docket has all the information for which you requested confidential treatment deleted from it. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:571 d:l0/23/9l

ID: 3194o

Mr. J. E. Carr
Product Safety & Environmental Control
Caterpillar Inc.
Peoria, IL 61629

Dear Mr. Carr:

This letter responds to your inquiry of April 29, 1988, asking this agency for an interpretation of Standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems, as it applies to the components of a diesel truck engine and accelerator control components described in your letter. I apologize for the delay in this response.

With your letter, you provided diagrams of three different accelerator control systems and fuel metering devices for a diesel engine. The first system (Type I in your letter) was a purely mechanical system. In this system, the linkage from the accelerator pedal connects to a mechanical governor. This governor is a device that responds to pedal displacement, and causes a rack to move, thereby controlling the flow of fuel from fuel injector pumps into the engine cylinders. The second and third systems described in your letter operate through an electrical-mechanical sequence. In the second system (Type II in your letter), mechanical linkage from the accelerator pedal connects to an electronic pedal position sensor. When the vehicle operator puts pressure on the accelerator pedal, this sensor converts that movement into an electrical signal. The electrical impulse travels through a wire to an engine control module (ECM). The ECM interprets pedal position and engine speed from the sensor impulse, and determines how much fuel must go to the engine cylinders either to maintain or reduce speed in consequence of pedal movement. In turn, the ECM sends a signal to a motor which moves a fuel rack to control the flow of fuel from the injector pumps into the engine cylinders. In the system you call Type III, the ECM sends a signal directly to individual fuel injector pumps without the intervention of a rack. Otherwise, Type II and III are the same.

On October 28, 1988, at the agency's invitation, you met with us to further explain the background information for this request and why Caterpillar believes that particular components were included in either the accelerator control system or the fuel metering device. During the course of that meeting, you agreed with us that Caterpillar's principal concern was not whether any particular component was part of the accelerator control system or the fuel metering device. Instead, you were concerned with the requirement that the throttle "shall return to idle" under specified conditions. You explained that your ECM is designed to shut off the engine, rather than return the throttle to idle, during many failure modes. We conclude that the requirement that the throttle "return to idle" is satisfied by a system that shuts off the engine in the specified circumstances.

As S2 of Standard 124 makes clear, the purpose of the standard is to prevent runaway vehicles when certain malfunctions occur in the accelerator control system. If such malfunctions do occur, the standard ensures that the engine will not continue at a high speed, but will return to idle, so that the driver can safely brake the vehicle and get it off the road. In both the Type II and III systems referred to in your letter, the agency understands that a failure in the ECM circuitry, or a failure of the components that respond to the ECM, will either return the throttle to idle or shut down the engine. Either of these results would serve the purpose of Standard 124. Therefore, we interpret the phrase "return to idle" to be satisfied by returning to idle or going beyond that throttle position to shut off the engine. Accordingly, based on the information you have provided, it appears that your Type II and III systems would comply with Standard 124 regardless of whether the ECM and other components are considered part of the acclerator control system or the fuel metering device.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please call Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:124 d:ll/9/88

ID: 3194yy

mation is helpful. If you have any further questions,
please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by
telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure /Ref: 302 d:l0/2l/9l

ID: 3195yy

Dr. Robert A. Adams
Vice President
Solar Car Corporation
1300 Lake Washington Road
Melbourne, FL 32935

Dear Dr. Adams:

This responds to the petition by Solar Car Corporation dated September 12, l991, for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The basis of the petition is "low-emission engine features."

According to the petition, Solar Car "retrofits" Ford Festivas, Dodge Colts, and Chevrolet S 10 pickup trucks to electric and solar electric configuration. We understand this to mean that Solar Car converts new, previously untitled vehicles, rather than that it converts vehicles that are brought to it by their owners. If the latter is the situation, a temporary exemption is unavailable for these vehicles, as our authority to provide exemptions does not cover vehicles that have been in use.

The petition requests a blanket exemption from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If such a petition is to be submitted, it must follow the format specified by the exemption regulation, 49 CFR 555.6(c), providing information with respect to each standard as to how an exempted vehicle would differ from a conforming one, and why an exemption from that standard would not unduly degrade motor vehicle safety. This information is completely lacking from the Solar Car petition. As you might imagine, NHTSA does not encourage petitions that request exemption from all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and, in point of fact, has never considered such a petition. Furthermore, in the case of Solar Car, such a comprehensive petition does not appear necessary for it to pursue its business plan.

The base car or truck converted by Solar Car will already have been certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (which are found at 49 CFR Part 571). What Solar Car must do is to determine which of those standards may be affected by its conversion operations, and then determine the extent of any noncompliance that may be created. With the thought that it may assist you, I enclose a copy of a Federal Register notice that discusses the petition of another vehicle converter, and the standards which appeared to be affected by its conversion operations. Although the notice was published in l975, our requirements have not changed since that time.

We shall be pleased to consider this matter further when we have received a petition that meets the procedural requirements of Part 555. If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of my staff is available to answer them (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:555#567 d:l0/2l/9l