ID: nht91-5.42

DATE: September 9, 1991

FROM: None (Confidential)

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

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation-FMVSS 101 "Controls and Displays and FMVSS 208, "Occupant Crash Protection"

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-27-91 from Paul Jackson Rice (A38; Std. 208; Std. 101)

TEXT:

A major automobile manufacturer (hereafter referred to as "The Company") is seeking an interpretation relating to the applicability of a seat belt pretensioner system indicator display with respect to the requirements of FMVSS No. 101; "Controls and Displays" FMVSS No.208; "Occupant Crash Protection".

The Company is planning to incorporate a seat belt "pretensioning" system for active seat belt systems for the front outboard seating positions in some of its future models. The pretensioner system is a device that is designed to retract the belt webbing into the retractor when the vehicle experiences certain frontal area impacts. It is The Company's intention to provide an on board diagnostic system including a malfunction display that will allow the vehicle operator to assess the functional status of the seat belt pretensioner system.

The Company has proposed three alternatives to provide a visual display to illustrate the operational status for the seat belt pretensioner system Those proposals are set forth below.

Proposal #1

The Company proposes to utilize the existing seat belt telltale display field location. Presently, the seat belt telltale illuminates for a period of six seconds following ignition "key on", regardless of whether the seat belt is fastened prior to or following ignition actuation and, in conjunction with a six second audible warning accomplished by either chime or buzzer, signals the occupant to fasten the lap belt webbing of the seat belt. In the event of a pretensioner system failure, a five second period of lamp non-illumination will follow the "fasten belt message, followed by a one second illumination /0.5 second non-illumination cycle which will continue until the ignition key in the lock cylinder is moved to the "off" position. If there is no malfunction in pretensioner system, the only message displayed in the seat belt telltale field will be the "fasten seat belt" message.

Case I - No malfunction in the seat belt pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case II - Malfunction in the seat belt pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

Seat Belt Telltale Illumination Schematic For Proposal # 1

Proposal # 7

The second proposal also involves combining the "fasten belt" message and the "pretensioner malfunction", thus creating a condition of "non-discrete" messages for cases where a malfunction in the pretensioner system occurs. In the case of no pretensioner malfunction, two conditions exist: one in which the seat belt is fastened prior to ignition on, and one in which the seat belt is fastened following ignition, In the case where the seat belt is fastened prior to ignition, the fasten belt message will illuminate for seven seconds and then be extinguished. In the case where the ignition is activated prior to belt fastening, the "fasten belt" message is displayed until the belt is fastened. The Company believes that this complies with S4.5.3.3 of FMVSS 208.

Case IA - No malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened prior to ignition on.

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case IB - No malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened after ignition on.

(Text and graphics omitted)

Seat Belt Telltale Illumination Schematic For Proposal # 2

Proposal # 2 (Continued)

In the case of a pretensioner system malfunction, two conditions will also exist: one in which the belts are fastened after the ignition is activated. In the case where the belts are fastened prior to ignition, the display will illuminate continuously for a seven second period, followed by a non-illuminated period that will last from zero to 28 seconds. A pretensioner system diagnostic period will begin with ignition key on and will be completed within a seven to 35 second time period Following the diagnostic period, the malfunction in the pretensioner will be identified by a 0.5 on / 0,5 off illumination cycle. In the case where the belts are fastened after ignition, a 7 to 35 second illuminated period of diagnostics will occur, followed by a cycle that includes a 0.5 second period of non-illumination, 0.5 period of illumination, 0.5 second period of non-illumination, and a three second period of illumination. This cycle will continue until the seat belt is fastened, or the ignition is turned to the "key-off" position.

Case IIA - Malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened prior to ignition.

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case IIB - Malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened after ignition.

Seat Belt Telltale Illumination Schematic For Proposal # 2

Proposal # 3

The third proposal involves the use of the Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) telltale field that is required under the provisions set forth in FMVSS No. 208, Section 4.5.2, "Readiness Indicator" for devices that deploy upon impact. If there is no malfunction in the pretensioner system and/or the air bag system, the SRS telltale will illuminate for 7 seconds and then extinguish. In the event of a pretensioner system malfunction, the SRS telltale will illuminate for seven seconds, experience a non-illuminated zero to 28 second diagnostic assessment period, and then provide a malfunction message by completing a 0.5 second on / 0.5 second off illumination pattern that will be defeated by moving the ignition key to the "off" position. It should be noted that, in the event of an air bag malfunction, the SRS telltale will also provide the identical message, which will not be distinguishable from a malfunction message for the pretensioner system by the customer. However, the malfunction message will be distinguishable to a trained service technician using diagnostic tools.

Case I - No malfunction in the air bag and / or pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case II - Malfunction in the air bag and / or pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

SRS Readiness Indicator Illumination Schematic for proposal # 3

The Company requests that the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel provide interpretation regarding the proposals as follows:

Proposals # 1 and # 2

1) Does Proposal # 1 and / or Proposal # 2 comply with the requirements of FMVSS 101, S5.4 for use of common space to display messages?

2) Does Proposal # 1 comply with FMVSS 208, 57.3?

3) Does Proposal # 2 comply with FMVSS 208, S4.5.3.3(b)?

4) Is the pretensioner system malfunction message applicable to the "Readiness Indicator" requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.5.2?

5) If the seat belt pretensioner malfunction is interpreted as a "Readiness Indicator" as defined in FMVSS 208, S4.5.2 as a device that deploys upon impact, can its telltale be displayed in a common telltale display field that is required pursuant to FMVSS 101?

Proposal # 3

1) Is it necessary to provide two distinctive messages to indicate an air bag system malfunction and a seat belt pretensioner system malfunction, or is the general message indicating a malfunction in the air bag system and / or belt pretensioner system acceptable?

2) If the pretensioner system malfunction message is interpreted to be a readiness indicator, is it subject to FMVSS 101, S5.4.2. (Are readiness indicators also subject to FMVSS 101 requirements.)?

3) If the seat belt pretensioner malfunction is interpreted as a "Readiness Indicator" as defined as a device that deploys upon impact, can its telltale be displayed in a common telltale display field that is required pursuant to FMVSS 101?

General

Will The Company be required to furnish a separate display field for the pretensioner system operational status if all three proposals are interpreted as not complying with FMVSS 101 or FMVSS 208?

ID: nht91-5.43

DATE: September 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rosemary Dunlap -- President, Motor Voters

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-19-91 from Rosemary Dunlap to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6150)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking clarification of statements made by NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, Barry Felrice, at the July 1990 Public/Industry Meeting regarding possible federal preemption of proposed state disclosure legislation. Specifically, you requested us to provide legal support for Mr. Felrice's general statement that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) may preempt state laws requiring safety information disclosures to be affixed to vehicles. During a telephone conversation on July 1, 1991, Elizabeth Barbour of my staff informed you that in order to provide an opinion as to whether the Safety Act would preempt a specific state bill, we would need to review the provisions of that bill as a whole. Accordingly, you forwarded a copy of California Assembly Bill No. 71 to this office and asked whether the bill, if enacted into law, would be federally preempted.

We have reviewed the California bill. Because the question of preemption could turn on how the State of California would interpret the language in the bill and how it would be enforced if adopted, we are declining to provide a specific opinion as to whether or not the bill would be preempted. However, our discussion identifies the principles under which the validity of such legislation can be determined.

The bill would add a new section 24011.5 to the California Vehicle Code to read as follows:

24011.5 (a) Every dealer or lessor shall affix to the dashboard or a window of every new multipurpose passenger vehicle sold or leased, or offered for sale or lease, a notice which specifies whether or not the vehicle meets the following federal safety standards applicable to passenger cars:

(1) Side door strength; (2) Roof crush resistance; (3) Passive restraint devices; (4) Raised brake light.

(b) The notice required by subdivision (a) shall not be smaller than 8 inches by 10 inches, and shall be printed in at least 20-point type and shall be affixed in such a manner as to be readily removable by the purchaser or lessee.

(c) As used in this section, "passenger car" and "multipurpose passenger vehicle" have the same meaning as defined in regulations adopted pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act . . . .

According to the California Legislative Counsel's Digest, other provisions of existing California law would make violation of this requirement a crime.

At the outset, I would like to note that NHTSA has recently extended its standards/requirements on side door strength (FMVSS 214, quasi-static requirements only), roof crush resistance (FMVSS 216), passive restraint devices (FMVSS 208), and raised brake light (FMVSS 108) to cover most multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). The amendments will become effective over the next several years. Therefore, we believe that this bill will become largely superfluous during that timeframe, since most MPV's will be required to be certified as complying with the enumerated requirements. We note, however, that there may be some slight differences in the way these requirements are applied to MPV's and the way they currently apply to passenger cars.

By way of background information, Federal law, including agency regulations, can expressly or impliedly preempt state law. Under section 103(d) of the Safety Act, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal standard. A non-identical state standard preempted under section 103(d) would be an example of express preemption.

A requirement for a label related to safety could in some cases constitute a safety standard. For example, several Federal motor vehicle safety standards include requirements for permanent labels.

We do not, however, believe that the California bill would constitute a safety standard. Therefore, it would not be expressly preempted under section 103(d). While the bill would require an information sheet to be affixed to the vehicle, the information sheet would be readily removable by the purchaser or lessee. Thus, the information sheet is not intended to remain affixed to the vehicle after sale. The requirement that the information sheet be affixed to the vehicle appears to be solely for the purpose of ensuring that a prospective purchaser will see it, and is thus akin to a requirement that the information be prominently displayed in the dealer showroom.

Federal law impliedly preempts state law when (1) it is impossible to comply with both; (2) the federal interest in the field is so dominant that federalism principles prevent enforcement of complementary or auxiliary state laws; (3) the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to be exclusive; or (4) state law hinders the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of federal law. See Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 108 S. Ct. 1145, 1150-51 (1988).

We do not believe that the California bill would be preempted under any of the first three factors cited above for implied preemption. The California bill would not make it impossible to comply with federal law. Further, the federal interest in this area is not so dominant that complementary state laws may not be enforced, and the federal regulatory scheme is not so pervasive as to be exclusive.

There remains the issue of whether the California bill would be preempted as a state law which hinders the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of federal law. One problem in analyzing this question relates to the fact that we have difficulty understanding how the drafters of the California bill contemplate that the dealers/lessors subject to the requirements would be capable of complying with them.

Dealers/lessors would have no way of knowing whether an MPV met particular passenger car requirements unless the manufacturer advised them. For example, while dealers/lessors could visually determine whether an MPV had a passive restraint or raised brake light, they would not know whether those devices met Federal standards for passenger cars. Dealers/lessors obviously could not determine from inspection whether an MPV met the side door strength or roof crush resistance requirements applicable to passenger cars.

The drafters of the California bill may have assumed that dealers/lessors could obtain information from manufacturers concerning whether MPV's met particular requirements. However, even if manufacturers wanted to help their dealers comply with this requirement by providing such information, the manufacturers might not be able to do so. A manufacturer would not know whether its MPV's met certain passenger car standards unless it had conducted substantial testing. And it may not be possible to test some MPV's to passenger car standards, because of different vehicle configurations or other factors. If this were the case, it is unclear how anyone, including a manufacturer, would be able to determine whether an MPV met such a standard.

One of the purposes of the Safety Act that is emphasized in the legislative history is the need for uniform standards. If the bill were interpreted as going beyond requiring dealers/lessors to disclose what they or manufacturers know and instead to require manufacturers or others to undertake significant testing, it would impose burdens similar to the certification burdens of a safety standard. For some standards, such as those involving crash tests, these burdens are quite large. We believe that a state disclosure law that imposed significant testing burdens, in connection with an aspect of performance for which NHTSA has issued a safety standard or decided not to issue such standard, would hinder the objective of uniform standards and be preempted under federal law.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

ID: nht91-5.44

DATE: September 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Marcum -- Chairman, Electric Vehicles S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-91 from John Marcum to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5988)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 26, 1991, asking for a clarification of my letter to you of April 22.

As we advise you, under 49 CFR section 591.5(j), a nonconforming minibus may be imported if the purpose of its importation is "research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations or training." You ask whether "demonstrations or training" includes the carrying of passengers for demonstrations and evaluations. The answer is yes. Where, as here, the imported vehicle is intended for public transit, the carrying of passengers would appear to be an important and necessary part of demonstrating the features of the bus and evaluating the feasibility of offering electric-power public transportation in the United States.

You also ask whether there are any special conditions that may be observed, such as whether passengers should be charged for the rides. There are no special conditions that NHTSA has imposed under section 591.5(j) that relate to your operation. However, any test should be consistent with safe vehicle operation, such as not loading the vehicle above the capacity of the tires and suspension, having adequate braking ability, and provision for sufficient emergency exits. The question of whether a fee should be imposed for riding the bus could be relevant in a personal injury action brought against you by a rider; however, this is not a question to be answered under Federal law. You should consult a private attorney for guidance.

The fact that the law allows importation of a nonconforming bus for purposes of demonstration should not be interpreted as meaning that NHTSA is not concerned with the safety of a vehicle engaged in transporting members of the public. The agency believes that importers of buses should ensure that the vehicle is not loaded above the capacity of the tires and suspension, and that there is adequate braking ability and provision for emergency exits. Importers are reminded that the agency has the authority to impose terms and conditions related to safety in permitting importations of this nature.

Finally, you ask if there is a limit as to the length of time a demonstration with passengers is permitted. So long as the demonstration is ongoing and the length of time is reasonable, demonstrations with passengers would be permitted for the duration of the vehicle's stay in the United States.

ID: nht91-5.45

DATE: September 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Lombard -- Lombard Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-19-91 from Charles Lombard to Rick Iderstiene (OCC 6297); Also attached to letter dated 11-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Maloney

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR S571.211). Specifically, you enclosed some drawings and photographs of your "new wheel and/or hubcap design," the "Lombard Racer," and asked whether it can be marketed. As explained below, the answer is no.

S3 of Standard No. 211 specifies that wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections. The issue before us is whether the "Lombard Racer" includes any wheel nut, hub cap, or wheel disc that incorporates winged projections. To answer this, we have reviewed the drawings and photographs you have provided. Figures 4, 5, and 9 of the drawings show that the design of the octagonal hub cap incorporates two curved appendages (that the drawings depict as extending beyond the rim of the wheel), both emanating from the hub cap, that are placed at opposite ends from each other. Based on this, it is our opinion that your hub cap design incorporates "winged projections." As such, this design does not appear to comply with Standard No. 211.

I have, for your information, enclosed a copy of this agency's November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. That letter reaffirmed past interpretations stating that hub caps with winged projections do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211 and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(a)(1)(A)) makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce or import into the United States" any hub caps that do not comply with Standard No. 211. We would consider each sale or offer for sale of hub caps with winged projections to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (16 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108(a), up to a maximum of $800,000.

We have recently received a petition to amend Standard No. 211 to allow the manufacture and use of certain hub caps which may be prohibited under the existing language of Standard No. 211. The agency will be evaluating this petition over the next several months.

With your letter, you also enclosed promotional information from another company that offered hub caps with winged projections for sale. Thank you

for alerting us to this situation. We have referred this information to our enforcement staff for appropriate action.

I hope this information is helpful. Per your request, I have returned the enclosures in your letter to me. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

Letter dated 11-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Maloney, Esq. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-5.46

DATE: September 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Y. Endo -- Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-26-91 from Y. Endo to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6187)

TEXT:

This responds to your June 26, 1991 letter (your reference ME-0172) asking about S5.3.4 (tensile strength requirement) of Standard 106, Brake Hoses. I am pleased to be of assistance.

Before answering your specific question, I would like to provide some background on our agency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake hoses) sold in or imported into this country. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

You ask about S5.3.4 as applied to certain multi-section hydraulic hose assemblies. Each of these multi-section assemblies includes either two or three sections of hose, which are connected end-to-end. The sections of hose are connected to each other by an intermediate metal fitting. It is not clear from your letter whether the intermediate metal fitting is a single fitting or two fittings which are joined together. As discussed below, however, this would not affect the answer to your question with regard to tensile testing.

S5.3.4 states: "A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall withstand a pull of 325 pounds without separation of the hose from its end fittings." You state in your letter that there is a difference of opinion in your company as to this requirement. You believe that the requirement applies separately to each part of the multi-section assembly. Stated differently, you believe that the tensile test should be conducted for each section of hose with fittings at the ends. In contrast, others are of the opinion that the tensile test is conducted on the complete

combination assembly. Those persons believe that only the ends of the complete multi-section assembly, and not those of individual parts, need be fixed to the tensile test machine.

We agree with your view that each of the fitting-to-hose connections should meet the tensile strength requirement. The purpose of the tensile strength requirement is to ensure that a brake hose does not separate from its end fittings while in service. Under S5.3.4, all hydraulic brake hose assemblies must meet the tensile requirement. S4 of the standard defines "brake hose assembly" as: "a brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system...." Each portion of the multi-section assembly which consists of a section of hose with fittings is considered a separate brake hose assembly under that definition. This is true regardless of whether the intermediate fitting is a single fitting or two fittings joined together. (In the former case, the single fitting would be considered an end fitting for each of two sections.) Thus, each such portion of the multi-section assembly must meet the tensile strength requirements. Requiring each individual portion to meet the requirements guards against assembly failures due to the separation of the hose from any of the fittings.

However, technically speaking, the test may be conducted by applying the load to either the complete assembly or to each of the intermediate hose and fitting assemblies. Both of the test methods would provide equivalent results. Under either test, the requisite tensile load would be applied to each of the fitting-to-hose junctures.

ID: nht91-5.47

DATE: September 12, 1991

FROM: Robert A. Adams -- Vice President, Solar Car Corporation

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-21-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert A. Adams (A38; Part 555; Part 555.6(c))

TEXT:

Solar Car Corporation is a small corporation located at 1300 Lake Washington Road, Melbourne, Florida 32935, and chartered under the laws of the State of Florida. The company retrofits standard gasoline powered vehicles to electric and solar electric configuration for short range use by individuals and fleet operators. Information on the company and photos of our vehicles are herewith enclosed. Safety features inherent in the frame and body of the vehicle are maintained without alteration.

We hope to retrofit about 100 vehicles during the next twelve months, including Ford Festivas, Dodge Colts and Chevy S 10 pickup trucks. Not more than 2,500 exempted vehicles will be sold in the United States in any 12 month period for which an exemption may be granted pursuant to paragraph (C)(5) of 555.6 of the Code. It is the intention of Solar Car Corporation to conform with the safety standards of the Code at the end of the exemption period.

Solar Car Corporation hereby respectfully petitions the NHTSA for a temporary exemption for three years from federal motor vehicle safety standards as defined in Part 555 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 49 - Transportation on the basis of low emission engine features.

Electric and solar electric vehicles are inherently free from polluting emissions. A typical solar electric retrofit by Solar Car Corporation of a Ford Festiva has been subjected to substantial engineering tests at the California Air Resources Board facility in El Monte, California. Results of those tests and the judgement of CARB relative to the safety of the vehicle should be available to you from CARB.

Granting of an exemption would be in the public interest for several reasons, including current and proposed legislation (brief summary attached) either requiring or encouraging the use of low and zero emission vehicles, the environmental and health needs to reduce or eliminate pollution, and the need to reduce dependence on overseas sources of a rapidly depleting world supply of petroleum.

Granting of an exemption would also be consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as these non internal combustion powered vehicles are inherently safer than those traditionally using gasoline. I, in my lifetime, have, on three separate occasions, witnessed automobile accidents in which an ill fated driver is seen sitting in his car, engulfed in gasoline flames, with bystanders helpless to rescue him.

Our electric vehicles differ from a conventional gasoline powered vehicle in that an Advanced D.C. Motors, Inc. electric motor (description enclosed herewith) replaces the standard internal combustion engine and is coupled to the standard transmission by means of a heavy cast aluminum adapter plate. A Curtis electronic controller controls the electricity between the motor and batteries. We currently use ten batteries, most of which are secured in a heavy duty fiberglass container in the rear portion of the vehicle.

Solar Car Corporation has reason to believe that a temporary exemption will facilitate the development and field evaluation of its electric and solar electric vehicles. Several municipal and utility company fleet managers have serious interest in acquiring our vehicles for demonstration and field testing, and the Arizona Public Service Company has placed an order with us. The Energy Office of the State of Arizona has encouraged us over the past two years to produce and sell these vehicles in Arizona, and, as a matter of record, the Governor of Arizona rode in one of our prototype solar electric cars during the dedication ceremonies for the completion of the final segment of Interstate 10 which runs from Florida to California. We are an accredited vendor for the State of Arizona which will be purchasing fleets of electric vehicles during the next 12 months, subject to the exemption petitioned hereby. In addition to Arizona, municipal and utility fleet operators in California, Nevada, and Connecticut have expressed interest in our supplying purchase proposals that will allow them to further comply with mandates and incentives relative to the implementation of electric and solar electric vehicles as additions to their fleets.

I trust that the above information will allow you to make a favorable judgement in granting to Solar Car Corporation its request for a temporary exemption from federal motor vehicle safety standards on the basis of low emission engine features.

ID: nht91-5.48

DATE: September 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brett Reed -- Design Engineer, Imo Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-20-91 from Brett Reed to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6152)

TEXT:

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 S3.1.3 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 S3.1.3 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.

You should be aware that sections S3.1.4.1 and S3.1.4.2 of Standard No. 102 require identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, to be displayed in view of the driver. A design where the shift lever position displayed to the driver did not match the gear currently engaged by the transmission would not comply with this requirement, since it would not show the position selected. We believe that such a design raises obvious safety concerns, regardless of the technology used for the transmission and shift system, since it would mislead the driver concerning the gear position selected.

I note that the vehicles your letter asks about include, among others, "various on and off highway vehicles," and that the term "off highway vehicles" could include certain vehicles which are not considered "motor vehicles." Standard No. 102, as well as NHTSA's other safety standards, apply only to motor vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-5.49

DATE: September 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wayne Trueman -- BX-100 International

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-31-91 from Wayne Trueman to Barry Felrice (OCC 6314); Also attached to letter dated September 24, 1991 from Wayne Trueman to Marvin Shaw

TEXT:

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 1991.

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 truck, 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.

Attachment

List of State Directors of Pupil Transportation. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-5.5

DATE: July 23, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ivan Lee -- Deputy General Manager, Regulation Affairs, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-17-91 from Ivan Lee to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6151)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 17, 1991 concerning an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that Hyundai would like to have the following percentage of its passenger cars meet the dynamic performance requirements of the standard in each applicable year:

1994 model year -- 20 percent 1995 model year -- 20 percent 1996 model year -- 50 percent 1997 model year -- 100 percent

You ask whether this compliance schedule is acceptable.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the requirements of Standard No. 214. The new dynamic test requirements of Standard No. 214 are phased in over a three-year period, beginning on September 1, 1993. The October 30, 1990 final rule established two alternative compliance schedules. Each manufacturer must comply with either alternative, at its discretion. Under the first schedule, each manufacturer will have to meet the new side impact performance requirements based on the following phase-in schedule:

10 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the 12 month period beginning September 1, 1993;

25 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the 12 month period beginning September 1, 1994;

40 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the 12 month period beginning September 1, 1995; and All automobiles it manufactures on or after September 1, 1996.

To accommodate variation in the numbers of vehicles manufactured each year, the standard also permits these percentages to be applied to a three-year average annual production rather than to a single year's production. See section S8 of Standard No. 214.

Under the second schedule, no compliance will be required during the production year beginning September 1, 1993, but full implementation will be required effective September 1, 1994.

The compliance schedule you suggest would not appear to comply with either alternative. Since your suggested schedule does not achieve full implementation until the 1997 model year, it clearly does not comply with the second schedule. Under the first schedule, for passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1994 and August 31, 1995, the number of passenger cars complying with the dynamic performance requirements must not be less than 25 percent of (a) the average annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, and before September 1, 1994, by each manufacturer, or (b) the manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars between September 1, 1994 and August 31, 1995. See sections S3(c) and S8.2 of Standard No. 214. However, under the compliance schedule you suggest, only 20 percent of Hyundai's vehicles would meet the requirements during the 1995 model year. (I assume that, by 1995 model year, you mean the period from September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995. The rule refers to time periods, rather than to model years.)

The agency has received three petitions for reconsideration of the final rule requesting that the agency allow use of "carry-forward credits" during the phase-in of the dynamic test requirements. Such an approach could allow a compliance schedule like the one you suggested. The agency response to the petition will address the issue raised in your letter. The agency response is expected to be published in the Federal Register later this summer.

Please review the agency response to the petitions for reconsideration when it is published. If you believe that you need further clarification, please contact us again.

I hope that this information has been useful. If there are any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

ID: nht91-5.50

DATE: September 16, 1991

FROM: William Engel -- Assistant Chief, Covington (Kentucky) Fire Department

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to William Engel (A38; Std. 206); Also attached to letter dated 8-13-80 from Frank Berndt to L. Steenbock; Also attached to letter dated 2-11-88 from Erika Z. Jones to Joanne Salvio (Std. 206)

TEXT:

I am writing to you with a question about your Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #206. My question is "are door locks required on fire equipment"?

Our specifications required them on our new equipment, but the manufacturer stated that they are not required.

Could you give me the official answer on this question?