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

ID: 3196yy

William Engel, Assistant Chief
Covington Fire Department
100 E. Robbins St.
Covington, KY 41011

Dear Mr. Engel:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, new fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommmodations shall conform to this standard." [ S4]

Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks would be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:206 d:ll/7/9l

ID: 3197yy

Mr. Marc M. Baldwin
Parker, McCay & Criscuolo
Suite 401
Three Greentree Centre
Route 73 & Greentree Road
Marlton, NJ 08053

Dear Mr. Baldwin:

This responds to your September 25, 1991, letter in which you asked "the specific date when 2-point seatbelts were outlawed." Lap, or 2-point, belts have never been outlawed by this agency. Rather, 3-point, or lap/shoulder belts have been required at certain seating positions in certain vehicles. Lap belts are still permitted as the only occupant restraint at a seating position in all vehicles at some seating positions. Such seating positions include all seating positions that are not outboard seating positions and all seating positions that are not forward-facing. Your letter mentioned that you are specifically interested in this information for pending litigation regarding a 1984 passenger car convertible. Passenger car convertibles manufactured in 1984 were permitted to have lap belts installed at all seating positions. The following discussion should clarify NHTSA regulations regarding safety belts.

S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in passenger cars. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warnin

ID: 3198yy

c:\temp\interpretations\text\3198yy.txt
!!!!!!!!!empty file!!!!!!!!!!

ID: 3199o

Dear:

This is in reply to your letters of July 12, and September 2, 1988. In accordance with your request for confidentiality on the basis that your letter of July 12 contains confidential business information, your name, your company's name and address, and the name of the product concerned will be deleted from copies of this interpretation that are made publicly available.

Your company wishes to install a leveling device that will lower the height of a motor vehicle to facilitate entry. It can be activated only when the parking brake is applied and the vehicle is at rest. Normal vehicle height is restored by driver activation of a control when the ignition is in the "on" position. Should the operator attempt to drive away without activation of the control, release of the parking brake or registration of motion by a speed sensor ensures that normal vehicle height is restored within approximately l5 seconds. You state that the vehicle will conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards "when the vehicle is in its configuration for operation on public roads..., meeting all the requirements relevant to height (i.e., lighting device mounting heights, rear view mirror fields of view, non passenger car CAFE" categorization, and the like). You believe that incorporation of the height adjuster feature should not be considered when determining compliance with either the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or the vehicle's classification for fuel economy purposes, except for mounting height requirements for lighting equipment designed to be used while the vehicle is stationary (such as parking lamps and hazard warning signal lamps). You ask for our concurrence in this interpretation.

Your interpretation is acceptable to us. Provision of the feature described would not invalidate the certification of your company that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor safety standards. We note that the adjustment in height is not automatic, but at the discretion of the vehicle operator. Further, the height adjuster is designed so that if it depresses vehicle height while a vehicle is being operated, it would do so only temporarily, i.e., not more than 15 seconds. Similarly, the height adjuster would not lead to a change in the classification of your vehicle for purposes of the fuel economy standards. Although 49 CFR 523.5 clearly indicates that measurement of angles and clearances for automobiles capable of off-highway operation is to be made when a vehicle is at rest, and your vehicle apparently would not have the requisite angles and clearances when the height adjuster is activated, it would have those angle and clearance when the adjuster is not activated. Further, activation of this feature is discretionary and its effects on the vehicle in motion are, as already noted, very brief. Thus, the vehicle would have the requisite clearance almost all of the time while it is being operated.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#523#108

ID: 3199yy

Mr. Robert A. Nordmeyer
Nordic Associates
P.O. Box 925
Woodland Hills, CA 91365

Dear Mr. Nordmeyer:

This responds to your September 18, 1991 letter to NHTSA's Rulemaking office concerning your design for an aftermarket sun visor. Your letter has been referred to me for reply.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Act also authorizes us to require the recall and remedy of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety defect.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to an aftermarket sun visor. The safety standards relating to sun visors (Standard 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and 302, Flammability of Interior Materials) apply only to new motor vehicles and not to items of aftermarket equipment.

The sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Standard 201, which requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mounting must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of that requirement is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. If your sun visor were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor would have to comply with the visor requirements of Standard 201. I am enclosing a copy of the standard for your review.

Standard 302 requires sun visors in new vehicles to meet the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. The standard specifies that the material used on the visor must not burn at a rate of more than four inches per minute. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

Although your sun visor would be sold in the aftermarket, not as an item of original equipment, Standards 201 and 302 can nonetheless affect persons who install the visor. The Safety Act provides that a person who manufactures, distributes, sells or repairs motor vehicles cannot "render inoperative" a regulated device such as a sun visor or its mountings. If a repair shop were to remove a vehicle's sun visor and replace it with your visor, the shop would be in violation of the Act unless your visor complied with the standards. An individual owner may install a visor in his or her own vehicle without regard to the standards.

You should also be aware that our safety defect authority has a bearing on the manufacture and sale of your visor. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. A manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that the manufacturer's product contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:201#302 d:ll/l3/9l

ID: 3200yy

Mr. Michael D. Incorvaia
Manufacturing Engineering Manager
Wagner Lighting
P.O. Box 4650
Sevierville, TN 37864

Dear Mr. Incorvaia:

This responds further to your letter of July 3, 1991, which we informed you on August 20, will be accorded confidential treatment.

Paragraph 4.5 of SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, states that "failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate should be indicated by a 'steady on', 'steady off', or by a significant change in the flashing rate of the illuminated indicator." Electronic flashers available today provide a "significant change" in flash rate by doubling it as an outage indication. Wagner Lighting has developed a lamp outage indication that will remain within the performance parameters of Standard No. l08, but provide an outage flash rate that appears to be slightly less than 50% greater than that of normal operation. However, there will be "a recognized change in flashing rate." You have asked whether these changes may be regarded as "significant" within the meaning of SAE J588e.

Your letter indicates that the design contemplated by Wagner Electric is for application in new motor vehicles. Although SAE J588e remains in effect as a replacement equipment standard, Standard No. l08 has been amended to incorporate by reference new SAE standards for turn signal lamps, and it is these standards that now apply to turn signals on new motor vehicles. Specifically, on and after December 1, l990, a motor vehicle must be manufactured to meet either SAE Standard J588 NOV84, Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width, or SAE Standard J1395 APR85, Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width. The outage indication requirement of SAE J588e was not adopted in either of the SAE standards, and has not been incorporated directly in Standard No. l08. This means that outage indication is no longer a requirement on new motor vehicles, and that Wagner Electric, under Standard No. l08, may adopt such change in flash rate as its design may call for.

We are returning the tape that you enclosed.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:l08 d:ll/l2/9l

ID: 3201yy

William Engel, Assistant Chief
Covington Fire Department
100 E. Robbins St.
Covington, KY 41011

Dear Mr. Engel:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, new fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommmodations shall conform to this standard." [ S4]

Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks would be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:206 d:ll/7/9l