ID: nht92-5.2

DATE: August 3, 1992

FROM: Gary L. Hopkins -- VP & G.M. Control Systems Products, Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation - Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124; Accelerator Control Systems (FMVSS #124)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/23/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gary L. Hopkins (A39; Std. 124)

TEXT:

Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems of Allied-Signal Inc. (BHVS) manufactures electronic treadle assemblies that are utilized by several vehicle manufacturers as a component of their acceleration control system used with electronically controlled diesel engines. The BHVS electronic treadle assembly (see attachment) modulates an electric signal, received from an outside source, in response to the input of the operator's foot. This signal is an input to the engine electronic controller which in turn provides electronic signals that operate the engine fuel injectors to control engine power. (See attached schematic of a typical electronic engine control system).

The scope and requirements of FMVSS #124, which is a standard last updated in 1973, are specific as to the return of the vehicles throttle to the idle position. The BHVS electronic treadle assembly is not a throttle as it is not a component of the fuel metering device, nor is BHVS aware of any component on an electronic controlled diesel engine that is a throttle as defined by the standard. Therefore, it is our interpretation and opinion that FMVSS #124 is not applicable to the BHVS electronic treadle assemblies and electronic controlled diesel engines.

While BHVS has taken the above stated position on the applicability of FMVSS #124, it is recognized that until an appropriate standard is issued good safety design practices shall continue to be applied. Therefore, a malfunction in the accelerator control system that results in loss of vehicle control would be a safety related issue, not a compliance issue.

To be specific, BHVS is hereby requesting confirmation of our position that vehicles equipped with electronic engine control systems of the type as described and depicted in the schematic and which include an electronic treadle assembly are not covered by the scope and requirements of FMVSS #124.

If additional information is necessary, please contact me at (216) 329-9200.

(Drawings omitted)

ID: aiam2453

Dear Mr. Greiner: This responds to your July 23, 1976, request for clarification o certification responsibilities in the case of trucks that are manufactured in two or more stages. By virtue of our earlier correspondence, you are aware of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) regulations for the assignment of these responsibilities (Part 567, *Certification*, and Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*).; With regard to the first two questions in your letter, the NHTS considers the mounting of a used body on a new cab-chassis to be the manufacture of a motor vehicle that requires certification. In these cases, the incomplete vehicle document is provided along with the new cab-chassis. The replacement of a used body with a new one is not considered to be a manufacturing operation that requires certification of the vehicle as completed.; Your second and third questions ask whether the final-stag manufacturer of a tank truck may assume what commodity will constitute the cargo (*e.g*., bulk milk) as the basis for assigning the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Section 567.4(g)(3) specifies that the GVWR determination be based on the 'rated cargo load' which is determined by the final-stage manufacturer. It would appear reasonable for the final-stage manufacturer to use the weight of bulk milk as the basis for its calculation of rated cargo load, particularly where the tank was used for milk previously, and when the vehicle is completed by a member of a trade association specializing in food and dairy equipment manufacture.; Your fourth question raises the difficulty of certifying a complete vehicle in the case where the incomplete vehicle document is missing from the cab-chasis (sic). You object that the final-stage manufacturer bears 'the ultimate burden' of certification, when he does not have control over the entire manufacturing operation.; Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. S 1403) mandates that the manufacturer of a vehicle certify compliance, and this constitutes a statutory requirement which is not subject to the control of the NHTSA. Part 568 requires provision of the incomplete vehicle document and represents the agency's judgement of the means by which the final-stage manufacturer can best be assisted in meeting the statutory obligation to certify compliance. The agency believes that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer would be in a position to supply a substitute document in the event the original document is lost.; In answer to your last question S 568.5 of our regulations provide that an intermediate-stage manufacturer (such as a person that adds or moves an axle) shall, if such changes affect the validity of statements in the incomplete vehicle document, furnish an addendum to the document that indicates appropriate changes that should be made in the document. Thus the intermediate-stage manufacturer that affects the weight rating set forth in the incomplete vehicle document must provide an addendum explaining the effect of the modifications. The responsibility for certification continues to remain with the manufacturer, who is the person exercising ultimate control over the components used in the axle system.; If, after having digested these comments, you still feel a meeting i necessary, please get in touch with our Engineering Systems Staff ((202) 426-2817) and one will be arranged.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 3041yy

Mrs. Elizabeth Anania
3045 Granville Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609

Dear Mrs. Anania:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle.

You explained that your husband, Vincent Anania, has some paralysis of his right arm and hand as a result of a stroke a year ago. You explained that your husband wishes to begin driving again and was recently evaluated by Bryant Driving School in Raleigh who determined that he was qualified to drive. However, the seat in your automobile does not move far enough back to allow your husband to enter the vehicle. You asked for permission to have your vehicle modified so that the seat can move further back. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulations will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, 108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your husband's condition. We caution, however, that only modifications necessary to accommodate your husband's condition should be made to the seat.

If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA, 207 d:6/24/9l

ID: nht91-4.27

DATE: June 24, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Elizabeth Anania

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-31-91 from Elizabeth Anania to Steve Kratzke; (OCC 6100)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle.

You explained that your husband, Vincent Anania, has some paralysis of his right arm and hand as a result of a stroke a year ago. You explained that your husband wishes to begin driving again and was recently evaluated by Bryant Driving School in Raleigh who determined that he was qualified to drive. However, the seat in your automobile does not move far enough back to allow your husband to enter the vehicle. You asked for permission to have your vehicle modified so that the seat can move further back. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulations will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, S108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any

violation of S108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your husband's condition. We caution, however, that only modifications necessary to accommodate your husband's condition should be made to the seat.

If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam0693

Dear Mr. Leek: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1972, concerning problem you are having in certifying certain vehicles on which you install a boom-loading device. You state that the chassis on which you are to install this device has been altered by a person who added a tag axle but did not furnish you a GAWR for it. It was also altered by the owner, who partially installed a flat bed but did not install clearance lights or reflectors. You say that you cannot certify the vehicle because (1) you have no GAWR figures for the tag axle, and (2) the vehicle does not have appropriate lights or reflectors.; You can solve the problem you describe in either of two ways. First you may be able to install the boom-loading device as an intermediate manufacturer under the regulations governing 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages' (49 CFR Part 568, S 568.5, copy enclosed). You may do so if the vehicle, after the completion of your work, is still an incomplete vehicle as defined in section 568.3 of the regulations. The fact that lighting equipment has been omitted and a flat bed is still to be installed indicate that this would be a reasonable position for you to take. If you proceed in this manner you must furnish an addendum to the incomplete vehicle document, as provided in section 568.5, to the person to whom you deliver the vehicle.; Your other option is to provide the owner with a completed vehicle. I this case you must provide a GAWR for the tag axle, install the necessary lighting equipment, and certify the vehicle. You should seemingly be able to obtain the GAWR from the axle manufacturer, but we recommend you request that this information be furnished to you in writing, and that you retain it after you complete the vehicle. The requirements for proper lighting and reflective equipment are contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, a copy of which is also enclosed. According to your letter, once you have made these modifications, there should be no obstacle to your properly certifying the vehicle.; We have forwarded a copy of your letter to our Office of Standard Enforcement for appropriate action regarding the failure of Reliable Spring Company to furnish you with the GAWR for the axle they installed, and we thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0691

Dear Mr. Leek: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1972, concerning problem you are having in certifying certain vehicles on which you install a boom-loading device. You state that the chassis on which you are to install this device has been altered by a person who added a tag axle but did not furnish you a GAWR for it. It was also altered by the owner, who partially installed a flat bed but did not install clearance lights or reflectors. You say that you cannot certify the vehicle because (1) you have no GAWR figures for the tag axle, and (2) the vehicle does not have appropriate lights or reflectors.; You can solve the problem you describe in either of two ways. First you may be able to install the boom-loading device as an intermediate manufacturer under the regulations governing 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages' (49 CFR Part 568, S 568.5, copy enclosed). You may do so if the vehicle, after the completion of your work, is still an incomplete vehicle as defined in section 568.3 of the regulations. The fact that lighting equipment has been omitted and a flat bed is still to be installed indicate that this would be a reasonable position for you to take. If you proceed in this manner you must furnish an addendum to the incomplete vehicle document, as provided in section 568.5, to the person to whom you deliver the vehicle.; Your other option is to provide the owner with a completed vehicle. I this case you must provide a GAWR for the tag axle, install the necessary lighting equipment, and certify the vehicle. You should seemingly be able to obtain the GAWR from the axle manufacturer, but we recommend you request that this information be furnished to you in writing, and that you retain it after you complete the vehicle. The requirements for proper lighting and reflective equipment are contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, a copy of which is also enclosed. According to your letter, once you have made these modifications there should be no obstacle to your properly certifying the vehicle.; We have forwarded a copy of your letter to our Office of Standard Enforcement for appropriate action regarding the failure of Reliable Spring Company to furnish you with the GAWR for the axle they installed, and we thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-1.41

DATE: 02/21/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Roger Tilton; NHTSA

TO: Docket

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: EX PARTE CONTACT

On February 21, 1978, by phone at I met with/(spoke with) Mr. Dick Presno of Sheller Globe Corporation. Discussion: He asked whether a 34 inch seat cushion with a 39 inch seat back would be permitted to have a 30 inch restraining barrier. I told him that, in line with earlier interpretations, a 34 inch seat cushion would require a 34 inch restraining barrier.

ID: nht75-5.15

DATE: 07/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE: Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: APAA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter inquiring whether certain automotive products are subject to the defect reporting requirements of the Traffic Safety Act (Section 158(a)(1)), and whether manufacturers are required to submit defect reports on communications arising out of improper customer maintenance or abuse.

Section 102(4) of the Traffic Safety Act defines "motor vehicle equipment", in part, as:

"* * * any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle * * *"

Thus, any item of equipment which becomes "part" of the motor vehicle is an item of motor vehicle equipment covered by the Act. We further have determined that any item of equipment intended by the equipment manufacturer for use principally by the user of a motor vehicle, or any item that is normally kept in the vehicle, is an "accessory" to the vehicle and is also covered by the Act.

In deciding whether or not the items listed in your letter are items of motor vehicle equipment and thus subject to the defect reporting requirements of the Act, the above factors were considered. In the list below, those items not considered motor vehicle equipment are "repair shop items," not intended for principal use by the user of a motor vehicle. The particular reason for the inclusion of each of the other items within the coverage of the Act is given following each item.

Hand tools:

Lugnut tightner: Yes, because it is principally intended for use by a motor vehicle user with the vehicle. Therefore, it is an accessory.

Clutch adjusting tool: No. It is not an accessory as principal intended use is by someone other than the user, such as a repairman.

Feeler gauge: No.

Battery carrier: No.

Point file: No.

Ratchet wrench: No.

Mechanical tools: Sanders: No.

Pullers: No.

Crankshaft grinder: No.

Honing machine: No.

Repair kits:

Soldering/welding kits: No.

Tire repair kits: Yes, because the plugs, cement, vulcanizing liquid and patches become part of the tire and thus part of the motor vehicle.

Suspension devices:

Sway bars: Yes, because they become part of the vehicle when attached thereto.

Steering stabilizers: Yes, because they become part of the vehicle when attached thereto.

Wheel balancers: If you are referring to the machine used to balance wheels, then it is not an item of motor vehicle equipment as it is not an accessory. If you are referring to the actual weights attached to the wheels, then they are motor vehicle equipment because they become part of the vehicle.

Towing devices:

Chains: Yes, because during the towing operation, they become part of the vehicle.

Hitches: Yes, because they are attached to the vehicle and thereby become part of it.

Towbars: Yes, because during the towing operation, they become part of the vehicle.

Test instruments:

Timing light: No.

Tire gauges: Yes, to the extent that they are sold principally to owners for use with the vehicle.

Compression tester: No.

Vacuum and fuel pump tester: No.

Chemicals:

Traction compound chemical: If by this you mean some sort of substance designed to help owners get their vehicle moving on slippery surfaces, then it is an accessory and is covered.

Lubricants: Yes, because they become part of the vehicle.

Miscellaneous:

Anti-theft devices: Yes, because they become part of the vehicle.

Battery cables: Yes, if they are sold to vehicle users for use primarily with vehicle.

Battery charger: No.

Fire extinguisher: Yes, if it is sold principally to users for use with the vehicle.

Flares: Yes, because they principally intended for use with the vehicle by users.

Fusees: Yes, because they are principally intended for use with the vehicle by users.

Mudflaps: Yes, because they become part of the motor vehicle.

Traction bars: Yes, because upon installation they become part of the vehicle.

Wheel adaptors: Yes, because upon installation they become part of the vehicle.

In response to your question concerning the submission of defect reports, it is important to note that the intent of Section 158 of the Act is to provide the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with the information it needs in order to fulfill its responsibility to examine manufacturers' judgments regarding the relationship to safety of vehicle and equipment defects. If a manufacturer discovers a safety-related defect in its product the manufacturer is avoiding the imposition of a penalty by forwarding copies of communications regarding such defect to NHTSA. If, on the other hand, the product does not contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer does not incur any liability for having forwarded copies of communications concerning the defect to the NHTSA.

The regulations concerning defect reporting provide that only communications "sent to more than one dealer or purchaser . . . regarding such defect" be forwarded to the NHTSA (49 CFR @@ 573.4(c)(8) and 573.7). It would appear that the communications about which you are concerned are principally individual communications to individual purchasers or dealers. The manufacturer would not have to submit copies of such communications to the NHTSA. This provision is carried over into the proposed amendments to Part 573 which are being issued in order to bring the regulation into line with Section 158 by including equipment manufacturers (39 F.R. 1863, January 15, 1974; 39 F.R. 43075, December 10, 1974).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht93-4.37

DATE: June 17, 1993

FROM: James N. Doan -- Counsel-Operations, Eaton Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: P. M. Menig

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 101

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/21/93 from John Womack to James N. Doan (A41; Std. 101)

TEXT:

Eaton Corporation manufactures and sells transmissions for heavy duty (MVMA Class 6-8) trucks. This is to request an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 101, Controls and Displays (49 CFR 571.101) regarding an enhancement being considered to the mechanical controls situated at the top of the transmission shift lever for such vehicles. Specifically the issue is the necessity of illuminating a control for automated vehicle speed (cruise control) mounted on the transmission shift lever.

Presently we offer up to two pneumatic control switches for controlling an auxiliary transmission mounted integrally with the main transmission. Examples of the controls mounted on the lever in the cab of the truck are shown in Figure 1. We are considering augmenting this control with three electrical switches mounted in a housing integral with what we call the "skirt." The skirt is the plastic extending downward from the knob that covers the metal parts of the valve and creates a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. Figure 2 shows the proposed skirt with the addition of two rocker switches. One controls cruise on/off (mounted on the side face) and the other controls cruise set/resume and accelerate/coast (mounted on the slanted top face). Figure 3 shows the proposed skirt with the addition of a rotary electrical switch for controlling an engine retarder or brake. This switch has an off position and up to three levels of retardation. Extreme care has been taken to make these controls readily accessible to the driver such that they can be operated without the driver having to remove his eyes from the road. We expect the cruise switches to be used during certain shifting maneuvers, especially on long upgrades where the driver will manipulate the switches to achieve cruise control in the next lower numerical gear ratio. This is consistent with how the driver presently operates the two pneumatic switches, completely by feel. We have chosen two separate planes for the switches (side face and slanted top face) to aid the driver in differentiating the switches. Furthermore, we have put the engine brake switch on yet another face to further aid operation by feel/position. With electronically controlled engines in trucks, we expect the engine brake switch will be put in one position and left there. On/off operation will then be handled by interrupts from other switches in the cab, especially the service brake switch.

"Cut out" of the cruise control and engine brake by other cab mounted switches is an important consideration. Figure 4 is a spreadsheet of intended operation of electronic engine controls for trucks for 1994 and beyond. Note that the service brake and the clutch pedal switches can cause the engine control to cease regulating engine and vehicle speed. In any emergency situation, one of these switches is likely to be activated, stopping the cruise control mode of operation.

It would be difficult and costly to illuminate the automated vehicle speed switches. We believe that these controls are "hand operated controls mounted upon the floor ... (or) floor console" and do not require illumination as specified in S 5.3.1 of FMVSS 101. They are mounted on a shift lever, mounted on the floor next to the operator and within easy reach. We would appreciate confirmation of this interpretation.

Please let me know if you have any questions or require any further information.

(Graphics omitted.)

ID: aiam0910

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of October 2, 1972, concerning th requirements applicable to a seat belt installed as part of a restraint system conforming to S4.1.2.3 of Standard 208.; You are correct in reading S4.1.2.3 to provide that a seat belt capabl of meeting the injury criteria of Standard 208 is not required to meet Standard 209 except as provided in S7.1 and S7.2 of Standard 208.; We have under consideration a petition from the Japan Automobil Manufacturers Association to amend Standard 209 to reflect the exemption made in Standard 208. The agency's response to the petition will be issued shortly.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel