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: 19766-1.pja

Mr. Brian Goodman
V.P. Marketing/OEM Relations
Katzkin Leather Interiors, Inc.
4110 Hinsdale Rd.
S. Euclid, OH 44121

Dear Mr. Goodman:

This responds to your letter concerning whether the "leather interiors" that your company manufactures for vehicle seating systems are "readily attachable components" as that term is used in our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567). As explained below, our answer is no.

You state that your product replaces "the existing factory cloth interior of an automobile." In a June 8, 1999 telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek, formerly of my staff, you explained that your products are generally installed in the vehicle prior to its first retail sale but could be installed afterward. You also stated that the interiors are installed on existing seat frames in three to five hours using "hog rings," hog ring pliers, and glue, and that some expertise is required. You said that installation is done almost exclusively by professional installers, and that your products are "used and distributed by over 1,500 restylers and dealers nationwide."

This letter explains your responsibilities in meeting the statutes and regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). You have also asked about your responsibilities and those of your restylers under private tort liability. Questions relating to private tort liability are determined by State law. You should therefore consult with your attorney or insurance company for answers to your questions about that matter.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. ("the Safety Act") to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Your product installed as part of a new vehicle

A vehicle manufacturer installing your product on a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's sale would have to certify that the vehicle, with your interior, complies with all applicable standards. There are a number of standards that could be affected by the installation of your interiors. NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, "Flammability of interior materials," which sets flammability resistance requirements for cushions and seat backs and other components of new motor vehicles. Any person manufacturing a new vehicle with your leather interior must ensure that the seat covers, and the other components subject to Standard No. 302, possess the burn resistance characteristics required by the standard. The new vehicle's seats must also be able to meet the performance requirements of Standard No. 207, "Seating systems," with your product installed. The vehicle manufacturer may have incorporated sensors and other features in the seating system that affect the performance of the vehicle in meeting air bag deployment and other requirements of Standard No. 208, "Occupant crash protection." Further, Standard No. 201, "Occupant protection in interior impact," requires, among other things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Manufacturers must ensure that installation of your product on the back of front seats achieves the requisite amount of cushioning needed to meet the standard. In addition, Standard No. 201 requires cushioning in other parts of the vehicle, such as the header and A-pillar areas.

New vehicles may be altered by dealers and restylers prior to their sale after they have been certified by their manufacturer. Our regulations cover two types of vehicle alterations. The first is, as your question notes, an alteration of a completed vehicle by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, which do not alter the vehicle's stated weight rating (49 CFR 567.6). This type of alteration does not involve any additional certification responsibilities by the alterer.

The second type of alteration is an alteration of a certified vehicle by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or an alteration in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid (49 CFR 567.7). A person or firm making this type of alteration, if done prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, must add a label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and containing the name of the alterer (49 CFR 567.7).

In general, whether modifications involve "readily attachable components" depends on the difficulty in attaching those components. The agency has considered such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise. We have previously stated that the addition of sub-flooring, padding, and carpeting to the floor of the vehicle may or may not involve the addition of "readily attachable components," depending on the amount of changes that were made to the vehicle itself.

Because your interiors require several hours to install by professional installers and require specialized tools for their installation, we would not consider your interior to be readily attachable or a minor finishing operation. Therefore, a company installing your interior prior to first sale would have to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with applicable safety standards.

Your product installed as aftermarket equipment

There is no safety standard that directly applies to your product if your product were sold for installation in used vehicles (as contrasted with installation on new vehicles before delivery of the vehicle to the first purchaser.) As discussed above, several of our safety standards that apply to a vehicle's seating system, and which may be affected by your product's installation, apply to new completed vehicles, not to aftermarket components. Nonetheless, businesses that modify the vehicle are limited in their modifications by 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section of our statute prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from installing any modification that "make[s] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any person in the aforementioned categories that installs your interior in a motor vehicle and that makes inoperative the compliance of a device or element of design on the vehicle would be violating 30122. Persons violating this section are subject to fines of up to $1,100 per violation.

We also note that the Safety Act requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Accordingly, you and any manufacturer installing your product in a new vehicle must ensure that the product is defect-free. If it were determined that the interiors had a safety-related defect, all purchasers would have to be notified and the defective item repaired or replaced without charge.

Individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles. You might wish to consult State regulations to see whether installation of your interiors would be permitted under State law.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#201#302
d.9/29/99

ID: 11258

Mr. Edward J. Googins
Chief of Police
City of South Portland
30 Anthoine Street
South Portland, ME 04106

Dear Chief Googins:

This responds to your question whether passenger seat belts must be installed on a 1982 school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 20,200 pounds. The answer is no; NHTSA's regulations do not call for the belt systems.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the subject of your letter, a 1982 International - Model #S1700 bus with a GVWR of 20,200 pounds, was manufactured as a school bus.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, establishes occupant protection requirements for school bus passenger seating and restraining barriers. Standard No. 222 did not in 1982, and does not now, specify that newly manufactured school buses with a GVWR of 20,200 pounds have passenger seat belt assemblies. Thus, under Standard No. 222, your 1982 school bus need not have seat belt assemblies for passengers.

However, please note that the States are free to require seat belts in large school buses used to transport students. Enclosed is a February 14, 1992 letter to Mr. Michael A. Martin of the Maine Bureau of Highway Safety, addressing the relationship between Federal school bus safety standards and state law. Note that on page two, NHTSA explains that a State may require seat belt installation for school buses procured by the State, as long as Federal compartmentalization requirements are not compromised.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:222 d:12/8/95

ID: 9326

Mr. J. Z. Peepas
Selecto-Flash, Inc.
P.O. Box 879
Orange, NJ 07051

Dear Mr. Peepas:

This is in reply to your FAX of November 12, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, the latest in a series of communications about how the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108 are to be applied to gooseneck trailers.

On October 20, we sent you a correction of our earlier interpretation of S5.7.1.4.2(a). Our correction stated that the requirement is that conspicuity treatment not be obscured by trailer cargo. If conspicuity treatment is applied to the gooseneck of a container trailer, we understand that it will be obscured by the container (cargo) when it is in place.

S5.7.1.4.2(a) also specifies that conspicuity treatment "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." The length of the gooseneck is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of calculating the half length that must be covered by the conspicuity treatment (which, of course, would be greater than half the length behind the gooseneck).

You have suggested that we reevaluate the effect of excluding the gooseneck from compliance with the conspicuity requirements. There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that prohibits a manufacturer from applying retroreflective sheeting to the gooseneck. Indeed, some manufacturers may wish to do so to provide conspicuity of the entire trailer side when the trailer is traveling without its cargo. However, conspicuity treatment on a gooseneck is not counted in determining whether at least half the trailer side is covered. An example may clarify this for you. Let us say that the overall length of the trailer is 40 feet, including an 8-foot gooseneck. The amount of the side to be covered is not less than 20 feet. The area to be covered is the 32 feet between the rear bolster to the point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus. Thus, regardless of whether conspicuity treatment is applied to the gooseneck, at least 20 feet of this 32-foot length must be covered in order to comply with Standard No. 108, and the spaces must be distributed as evenly as practicable. Standard No. 108 does not address the issue of the length of the spaces between strips, and a manufacturer may choose 4 feet or whatever is feasible for the trailer at hand.

On the basis of this interpretation letter, we believe that Selecto-Flash ought to be able to judge whether the conspicuity treatments on Prints A-1, A-2, B-1 and B-2 accord with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/30/93

ID: aiam3981

Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your two letters to the National Highway Traffi Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. We apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.; Your December 6, 1984 letter asked about paragraph S5.4.1 of Standar No. 217 and the ellipsoid used to measure the unobstructed opening of a pushout window or other emergency exit. To simplify matters, I will refer to the illustration you attached with your letter. You asked whether you may rotate the ellipsoid in such a way that axis C-D may be horizontal instead of axis A-B.; By way of background information, I would like to explain that NHTS does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letters.; Paragraph S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217 states that: >>>After the release mechanism has been operated, each push-out windo or other emergency exit not required by S5.2.3 shall...be manually extendable by a single occupant to a position that provides an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches.<<<; Since the language of section S5.4.1 requires only that '*a* majo axis' of the ellipsoid to be horizontal when the ellipsoid is passed through the emergency exit, you are not prohibited from positioning the ellipsoid with only a single major axis, such as C-D, horizontal. If there is unobstructed access of the ellipsoid through the opening, with major axis C-D horizontal, then the emergency exit meets the requirement of S5.4.1 as that section is written.; Even if the design of the exit would not violate S5.4.1, however, w urge you to ensure that the design would not complicate efforts of the passengers to use the emergency exit. It appears that the intent of the agency was for the *plane* generated by the major axes to be horizontal when the ellipsoid is passed through the exit. Otherwise, since *a* major axis of the ellipsoid will at all times be horizontal, no matter how the ellipsoid is passed, the benefit of such a requirement would be reduced. Further, the opening to the emergency exit could be significantly reduced when the only horizontal major axis is C-D.; The agency issued an opinion in April 1977, stating that S5.4.1 an S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 require the long side of a rectangular roof exit to be parallel to the center line or the side wall of a bus. That opinion interpreted S5.4.1 as requiring the ellipsoid to be passed through the exit with more than one of its major axes horizontal. That interpretation relied on the intent of the standard, but not the language of S5.4.1. This letter reconsiders the 1977 opinion and holds that the language of S5.4.1 requires only one major axis of the ellipsoid to be horizontal.; The two questions in your December 13, 1984 letter dealt with a outside release mechanism for pushout rear emergency windows. In a telephone call to this office on February 5, 1985, you said that the rear emergency pushout windows would be on school buses and buses other than school buses. You also asked whether an outside release mechanism may be installed on rear emergency doors on buses other than school buses.; Your first question was whether the following interpretation wa correct:; >>>FMVSS 217 does not require emergency exits to have outside releas mechanisms, except for school bus emergency doors. Therefore, if we provide an outside handle to operate a pushout rear emergency window, it does not have to meet any force level or type of motion requirements.<<<; You are correct that Standard No. 217 does not require emergency exit on school buses to have outside release mechanisms, with the exception in S5.3.3 for school bus emergency doors. We assume that there are release mechanisms for the pushout rear emergency windows located within the bus which meet all applicable requirements of Standard No. 217. If the emergency exit meets all applicable requirements of the standard, an outside release mechanism for a pushout rear emergency window that is provided in addition to the release mechanisms required by the standard need not meet any force application and type of motion requirements.; Your second question was whether the outside handle on the pushout rea emergency window could be equipped with a key operated mechanism that disengages the handle from outside the bus for security purposes. The handle, even when locked from the outside, does not ever prevent operation of the window's release mechanisms from inside the bus. The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 217 does not prohibit the type of handle you described when all applicable requirements of the standard can be met.; Our answers given above apply to outside release mechanisms on pushou rear emergency windows on school buses and buses other than school buses.; An outside release mechanism on rear emergency doors on buses othe than school buses would likewise not have to meet any force application and type of motion requirements, if the emergency door meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 217. The outside release mechanism can be equipped with the locking device you described, provided that Standard No. 217's requirements are met.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: 08-000218 covering the air bag label

ID: nht79-3.37

DATE: 03/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Salt Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 29, 1979, asking whether folding front seats on a two-door, 1978 Chevrolet Malibu are required to have locking devices.

The answer to your question is yes. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR 571.207) specifies in paragraph S4.3 that "a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat or seat back and a control for releasing that restraining device."

You stated in a telephone conversation with Hugh Oates of my office that your 1978 Malibu does not have such a restraining device, either manual or inertia-activated. Our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has found, however, that the front seating system of the 1978 Chevrolet Malibu two door sedan does in fact have a seat back locking device that is actuated by an inertia system. This system has been certified by General Motors Corporation as meeting the performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207. A description of this system is found on page four of section one in the owner's manual. If the inertia restraint system in your vehicle does not perform as described, you should contact your Chevrolet dealer.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 29, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Dear Sir:

Please advise me whether or not the folding front seats on a two door 1978 Chevrolet Malibu are required to have a locking device.

Sincerely,

Barbara A. Loureiro -- INTERNATIONAL SALT COMPANY

ID: nht95-4.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward J. Googins -- Chief of Police, City of South Portland (Maine)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/29/95 letter from Edward J. Googins to John Womack (occ 11258)

TEXT: This responds to your question whether passenger seat belts must be installed on a 1982 school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 20,200 pounds. The answer is no, NHTSA's regulations do not call for the belt systems.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the subject of your letter, a 1982 International - Model # S1700 bus with a GVWR of 20,200 pounds, was manufactured as a school bus.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, establishes occupant protection requirements for school bus passenger seating and restraining barriers. Standard No. 222 did not in 1982, and does not now, specify that newly manufactured school buses with a GVWR of 20,200 pounds have passenger seat belt assemblies. Thus, under Standard No. 222, your 1982 school bus need not have seat belt assemblies for passengers.

However, please note that the States are free to require seat belts in large school buses used to transport students. Enclosed is a February 14, 1992 letter to Mr. Michael A. Martin of the Maine Bureau of Highway Safety, addressing the relationship betw een Federal school bus safety standards and state law. Note that on page two, NHTSA explains that a State may require seat belt installation for school buses procured by the State, as long as Federal compartmentalization requirements are not compromised .

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

ID: nht95-7.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward J. Googins -- Chief of Police, City of South Portland (Maine)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/29/95 letter from Edward J. Googins to John Womack (occ 11258)

TEXT: This responds to your question whether passenger seat belts must be installed on a 1982 school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 20,200 pounds. The answer is no, NHTSA's regulations do not call for the belt systems.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the subject of your letter, a 1982 International - Model # S1700 bus with a GVWR of 20,200 pounds, was manufactured as a school bus.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, establishes occupant protection requirements for school bus passenger seating and restraining barriers. Standard No. 222 did not in 1982, and does not now, specify that newly manufactured school buses with a GVWR of 20,200 pounds have passenger seat belt assemblies. Thus, under Standard No. 222, your 1982 school bus need not have seat belt assemblies for passengers.

However, please note that the States are free to require seat belts in large school buses used to transport students. Enclosed is a February 14, 1992 letter to Mr. Michael A. Martin of the Maine Bureau of Highway Safety, addressing the relationship between Federal school bus safety standards and state law. Note that on page two, NHTSA explains that a State may require seat belt installation for school buses procured by the State, as long as Federal compartmentalization requirements are not compromised.

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

ID: nht74-2.48

DATE: 07/26/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

COPYEE: L. OWEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 11 in which you asked what standards will be applied to stop and turn signal lamps after September 1, 1974.

Parking, stop, and turn signal lamps are required by Section S4.1.1.11 and S4.1.1.12 to meet the grouped photometric minimum candlepower requirements specified in Figure 1 of FMVSS No. 108. Prior to September 1, 1974, multiple compartment or multiple lamps need only meet the group value total specified in Figure 1 for a single compartment or single lamp. After that date, however, the higher candlepower values for two and three compartments or lamps specified in Figure 1 are applicable.

Docket 69-19; Notice 3, published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1972, only proposed that SAE (Illegible Word) and (Illegible Word) be referenced in FMVSS No. 108. Until such time as Standard 108 is further amended, SAE J586b, June 1966, and J588d, June 1966, are applicable to stop lamps and turn signal lamps, respectively.

If the new revisions to the SAE standards are included as an amendment to Standard 108, sufficient lead time will be provided to allow the manufacturers to make any changes necessary to meet the new requirements.

Sincerely,

Not Controlled

ATTACH.

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

July 11, 1974

E.T. Driver -- Director Office of Operating Systems Motor Vehicle Programs,

U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: A lamp with two or three lighted compartments used in Stop Lamp and Turn Signal Lamp.

Dear Mr. Driver

According to S 4.1.1.12 in MVSS No. 108 a lamp with two or three lighted compartment is required to meet the minimum photometoric values at each test point specified in table 2 of SAE Standard J575d.

However, after September 1, 1974 a Stop Lamp has to be complied with SAE J586c by P.R. dated October 25, 1972 and SAE J508e for Turn Signal Lamp and further the standards of a lamp with two or three lighted compartments will be applied to a lamp with two or three lighted compartments and by F.R. dated April 9, 1974 the F.R. dated October 25, 1972 has been postponed.

Please let us know what standards will be applied to Stop, Turn Signal Lamp after September 1, 1974, the standards as they are now or the proposal as it is being planned will become effective.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Very truly yours, H. MIYAZAWA -- Director, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Dept.