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?

ID: nht91-5.51

DATE: September 17, 1991

FROM: Jeffrey P. Shimp -- Engineer, Fleet Engineering & Q.A., Transportation Department, Baltimore Gas and Electric

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeffrey P. Shimp (A38; VSA S108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

In order to better serve our customers, we have found it necessary to increase the size of our work crews from two men to three men in one of our departments. Due to the amount of material required for these crews, we have typically utilized (two passenger) cargo vans for this operation. In view of the above, we would like to install a third seat in our cargo vans (mini and/or short wheel base), which are delivered by the manufacturers as a certified completed vehicle.

We would greatly appreciate it if you could provide a written response advising us on this issue so that we can be in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and any other governing regulations.

If I can be of any assistance to you, please feel free to contact me (301/281-3630).

ID: nht91-5.6

DATE: July 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Hanna -- Lectric Limited, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-91 from Ken Hanna to Richard Van Iderstine (OCC 6238)

TEXT:

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

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

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. 108, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

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

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

ID: nht91-5.7

DATE: July 30, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Debby Funk

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-91 from Debby Funk to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 5, 1991, as a followup to my letter of June 25. You have asked whether "it would be illegal for the owner of a vehicle that has a center highmounted stop lamp to install an additional rear window brake light? (anywhere in the back window?)"

The answer is that it would not be illegal under Federal law for a vehicle owner to install an additional stop lamp anywhere in the back window, providing that all modifications were performed by the owner. However, the legality of the modification would still be subject to State law.

You have also asked "What is F.M.V.S.S. 108?" That is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. It can be found in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, as 571.108.

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to write.

ID: nht91-5.8

DATE: July 30, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Garth C. Bates, Jr.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-12-91 from Garth C. Bates, Jr. to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6225)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 12, 1991. In the letter, you ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has regulations concerning the construction or testing of compressed natural gas (CNG) automotive fuel tanks.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment nor endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, (49 CFR 571.301) specifies requirements for the integrity of motor vehicle fuel systems. However, that standard does not apply to vehicles that use only fuel with a boiling point below 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Since CNG has a boiling point well below this level, vehicles manufactured to be fueled only by CNG are not covered by the standard. You should be aware, however, that NHTSA recently discussed the possibility of establishing a fuel system integrity standard for vehicles using CNG in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The ANPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 1990 (55 FR 41561).

There are some requirements that are applicable to manufacturers of CNG automotive fuel tanks. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" 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 . . .

Since your product would be manufactured for use as an automotive fuel tank, it would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. If either your company, as the equipment manufacturer,

or this agency were to determine that your product contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company would have to notify purchasers of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the ANPRM concerning possible fuel system integrity requirements for vehicles using CNG and an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

Attachments

NHTSA information sheet dated September 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. (Text omitted)

NHTSA information sheet dated September 1985 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. (Text omitted)

Copy of the Federal Register, volume 55, number 198, 10-12-90: proposed rules concerning 49 CFR Part 571, Fuel System Integrity; Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-5.9

DATE: July 30, 1991

FROM: Martin L. Marinoff

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Martin L. Marinoff (A38; Std. 105)

TEXT:

Thank you so very much for sending me the information I requested. If and when your office is restocked with (1989 Safety Related Recall #12) I would deeply appreciate you sending me a copy.

My second request is a clarification as stated in your booklet (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations). Page #2 states under Standards #105 there must be a warning light system to indicate loss of pressure or low fluid level in the braking system. Please advise, have I interpreted this passage correctly?

Your forwarding of the above information will be deeply appreciated.