ID: 77-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pupil Transportation Service - Commonwealth of Virginia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 18, 1977, letter asking whether Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, permits the use of a two-passenger front-row seat with a corresponding two-passenger front-row restraining barrier. Secondly, you ask whether the State of Virginia can require the use in joints of discrete fasteners and welding, and not adhesives, without conflicting with the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. Finally, you ask who must certify that a vehicle complies with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

The NHTSA has issued an interpretation allowing the use of a two-passenger front-row seat with a two-passenger restraining barrier. This can be accomplished by the use of a two-passenger seat cushion and a three-passenger seat back as you suggest. I am enclosing a copy of the NHTSA interpretation for your information.

Regarding your second question concerning the use of adhesives in bus body joints, the Federal bus body joint standard requires only that joints meet a specified strength requirement. The NHTSA does not require any particular type of joint construction. Therefore, the purchaser and manufacturer can decide upon any method of joint construction as long as the joint meets Federal strength specifications.

Your final question asks who must certify that a small school bus (under 10,000 pounds) is in compliance with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. To assign responsibility for the certification of multi-stage vehicles, NHTSA has issued Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages (enclosed). The manufacturer of an "incomplete-vehicle" (such as a cab-chassis) must provide documentation to the intermediate- and final-stage manufacturer of the vehicle on how to complete it so that it complies with all applicable standards. It is the responsibility of the final-stage manufacturer to affix a certification label unless the incomplete- or intermediate-stage manufacturer assumes this responsibility.

On a related matter concerning small school buses, it is our understanding that school buses weighing under 10,000 pounds will be available after April 1, 1977.

SINCERELY,

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

February 18, 1977

Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration This is in further regard to my questions mentioned during our telephone conversation on February 17, 1977 and my conversation with Mr. Roger Tilton of your office on this date. As indicated to you and Mr. Tilton, written questions would be submitted. They are as follows:

1. FMVSS 222

1. Will standard allow for a two passenger right front barrier to allow wider entrance into aisle?

2. Can right front seat be a two passenger cushion with a three passenger back allowing all other seats to be a three passenger seat?

2. FMVSS 221

1. Will State of Virginia be able to require the use of discreet fasteners and welding only in the joining of panels without the use of adhesives? If not, why?

3. Question of certification and availability of completed van conversion type school bus under 10,000 lbs. GVWR.

Who will certify compliance with FMVSS 105?

Do you have information or position which indicate such small school buses can comply with April 1, 1977 requirements of federal standards?

Do you have information which indicate such small buses will be available after April 1?

Your response to these questions is needed at the earliest possible date because many local school districts are in the process of bidding for purchase of school buses which comply with both state and federal standards.

R. A. Bynum, Supervisor Pupil Transportation Service

ID: nht79-2.45

DATE: 05/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1979, to Bill Eason with respect to headlamp lens marking. Mr. Eason is no longer associated with the Office of Rulemaking and we regret the delay in writing you.

You have asked for a confirmation of your interpretation that:

"The headlamp designed to conform to J579c shall be provided with the lens marking specified in S4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the conventional maximum restriction of 37,500 cd."

You are correct that S4.1.1.21 permits the new code marking for headlamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J579c even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the maximum of 75,000 cd permissible under 579c or the previous maximum of 37,500 cd of J579a. But because the code could be misleading, we are considering proposing an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would delete the new code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed a certain value, such as 40,000 cd.

SINCERELY,

Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

January 29, 1979

Subject: Headlamp Lens Marking

Reference: Docket No. 78-5; Notice 3 of Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 145 dated July 27, 1978

Dear Sir:

With reference to the headlamp lens marking, the latest S 4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 as amended in Docket No. 78-5; Notice 3 of FR Vol. 43, No. 145 dated July 27, 1978, provides as follows;

Quoted " S 4.1.1.21 The lens of each headlamp designed to confom to SAE Standard J579c, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, December 1974, manufactured on or after July 1, 1979, shall be marked with the symbol ------------ -------- ." unquoted

The NHTSA's basic intention of establishing the above lens marking code is to give consummers a means of identification to determine which the photometric and beam pattern design specified in either SAE J579c or SAE J579a does apply to the headlamp and also to enable them to replace original headlamp with headlamp of compatible photometric properties, we believe.

In addition, it can be said that the headlamp designed to conform to SAE J579c is substantially different also in the upper and lower beam patter distribution as well as being different in the upper beam photometric maximum output, when compared with the headlamp of SAE J579a, we think.

KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

Attn. Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dated January 29, 1979

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your definite confirmation and our interpretation is as follows;

The headlamp designed to conform to SAE J579c shall be provided with the lens marking specified in S 4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the conventional maximum restriction of 37,500 cd.

If you have another interpretation of this code to this matter, please kindly let us know soonest possible because we have to change lens moulds to provide our headlamp with the proper marking.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

M. Iwase Chief, Overseas Technical Section Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

PS: POSTAGE STAMP ENCLOSED FOR YOUR REPLY BY AIR.

ID: nht81-1.3

DATE: 01/13/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 14, 1980, regarding the warning devices required by Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, and Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You ask whether the sound of a voice repeating the phrase "please pull out the ignition key" or "please fasten seat belt" at 2-3 second intervals could be used to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 114 and Standard No. 208. You also ask whether a buzzer or chime that signals an unfastened seat belt or the presence of the key in the ignition could also be used to give the driver other warnings, such as turning off the headlights.

Standard No. 114 does not specify the nature of the warning that must be given to the driver in the event that the ignition key is left in the locking system. Thus the system you describe would comply with the rule. Note that the signal must be activated whenever the key has been left in the ignition and the driver's door is opened.

Standard No. 208 requires that the driver's seating position be equipped with a warning system that activates a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of not less than four (4) seconds and not more than eight (8) seconds. The signal must begin when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the "on" or "start" position and the driver's belt is not in use. If the system you have devised stops the warning only when the belt has been fastened, it would not comply with this rule. The signal must end within eight (8) seconds, irregardless of whether the driver's belt has been fastened. Regarding your specific question, an audible "voice" signal would be permitted under the standard.

The buzzers or chimes that are installed in accordance with Standard No. 214 or Standard No. 208 may also be used to warn the driver of other conditions.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION

October 14, 1980

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir;

Subject: Warning Device for FMVSS 114 and 208

This letter is for getting your interpretation to the following questions concerning the warning devices required by FMVSS 114 and 208.

1. Is it considered as complying with the requirements to use the voice sound such as "please pull out ignition key" or "please fasten seat belt" which is activated repeatedly with 2 or 3 seconds pause?

In order to avoid customers' unpleasant impression due to abrupt cut-off of the voice when the instruction is followed, these warning voices would be ceased after completing the phrase.

2. In case when adopting buzzer or chime sound as the warning of FMVSS 114 or 208, could the same sound be utilized as other additional warnings such as the headlamp turning-off?

For any questions regarding this letter, please contact with the following representative of ours in the U.S.A. and mail your response to him.

T. Shimada -- Senior Technical Manager, MMC Services Inc.; 3000 TOWN CENTER; SUITE 1960; SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN 48075; TELEPHONE NUMBER: 313/353-5444

Your early response would be highly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Hidemi Ohya, Manager -- Homologation & Technical Liaison Section, Technical Administration Department

ID: nht79-4.35

DATE: 05/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 12, 1979, requesting an interpretation of the term "production process" as used in 49 CFR 571.115, S4.5.3.3. We are sorry for the delay in responding.

The production practice you describe on page 2 of your letter would satisfy S4.5.3.3. In the preamble to the final rule published on August 17, 1978 (43 FR 36451), the agency stated:

The NPRM proposed that the last six characters represent the sequential number of a vehicle when the manufacturer produced more than 500 vehicles annually of that type.

A number of comments pointed out that for various reasons a vehicle might be taken from a production line, thereby having an actual sequential number which differs from the production sequence number originally assigned by the manufacturer. The proposal is amended to indicate that the production sequence number is required.

Thus, Pullman Trailmobile should indicate the sequential number originally assigned by the manufacturer, not the number reflecting exact order in which the vehicle is produced.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 12, 1979

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

RE: FMVSS No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number Request for Interpretation

Dear Sirs:

FMVSS No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115, was recently amended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") in part as follows:

S4.5.3.3 The third through the eighth characters of the third section shall represent the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process . . .

The Pullman Trailmobile Division of Pullman Incorporated ("Pullman Trailmobile") requests an interpretation of the term "production process" from the Administrator.

Pullman Trailmobile is a manufacturer of highway truck trailers. Pullman Trailmobile's present production practice is that, upon acceptance of a customer's order for trailers, serial numbers for the trailers are immediately assigned and the order is thereupon placed with the appropriate Pullman Trailmobile plant for manufacture. Upon effectiveness of FMVSS No. 115, the number assigned in this fashion will be the vehicle identification number ("VIN"). The VIN plate or label will be affixed to each trailer when manufacture of the trailer is complete. Several situations could arise during manufacture which would cause trailers to be produced in a sequence different from that of the VIN sequence.

If the NHTSA intends the VIN to identify a vehicle's maker, attributes, age, etc., Pullman Trailmobile's practice will fulfill that purpose. If the NHTSA intends the VIN, among other things, to identify the exact order in which a given group of vehicles was produced, Pullman Trailmobile's practice will not fulfill that purpose.

Pullman Trailmobile believes that its production practice of assigning the VIN at the time of acceptance of a customer's order for trailers falls within the scope of assigning the VIN in the "production process", as that term is used by the NHTSA. This is, in fact, the first step in Pullman Trailmobile's production processes even though the physical production of vehicles has not yet begun.

It is requested that the NHTSA confirm Pullman Trailmobile's interpretation of "production process". Because of the considerable time, effort and expense involved in establishing its computerized VIN coding system, Pullman Trailmobile desires assurance from NHTSA that the aforementioned aspect of its production practice conforms with the regulations. Your prompt response will be appreciated.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID L. KELLY -- Attorney, PULLMAN TRAILMOBILE DIVISION OF PULLMAN INCORPORATED

ID: nht78-4.11

DATE: 10/31/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 6, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. You referred to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J571d, referenced in Standard No. 108, which specifies dimensions for rectangular headlamp retaining rings in its Figure 8(B). The table of dimensions in Figure 8 specifies a maximum of 1.52 mm for the "N" dimension on the drawing, the distance of the forward portion of the retaining ring from the lens surface. You stated that Toyota plans to increase that dimension by an unspecified amount for ornamental purposes.

You further advised that the proposed design would not interfere with the ability of the headlamps to meet the performance requirements of SAE J580a and b and of the mechanical aiming requirements of SAE J602c.

Since Figure 8(B) of SAE J571d shows that the "K" dimension shall not exceed 1.52 mm, any greater dimension would not meet the specifications of the standard. However, you may petition for rulemaking to appropriately amend Standard No. 108. We cannot, however, offer any assurance that the standard would be changed in response to your petition.

SINCERELY,

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

September 6, 1978

Joseph Levin Office of the Chief Council NHTSA

RE: Interpretation Request of FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Levin:

This is to request your interpretation of SAE J 571d with regard to the retaining ring for 4 x 6 1/2 inch rectangular headlamps, as quoted in FMVSS 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment."

According to Fig. 8 (B) of SAE J 571d, the forward portion of the retaining ring from the lens surface is limited to 1.52mm ("K" MAX). However, we feel that as long as the performance requirements specified in SAE J 580 a and b, and the aiming requirements specified in SAE J 602c are conformed (Illegible Word), it is not necessary to restrict "K" MAX to 1.52mm.

We are planning to introduce some models with 4 x 6 1/2 inch rectangular headlamps in the near future. The retaining ring is extended ahead, and is formed into a part of the ornamental door or bezel. (See attached drawing.) This retaining ring, as illustrated, is designed so that the opening dimension "L" must comply with the dimension required by the applicable SAE J 571d, "Dimensional Specifications for Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit." The ring's frame portion "M," which is relatively wider in flatness, as indicated, is made to be securely fitted with an aimer specified in SAE J 602c, "Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit," when the headlamps are mechanically aimed.

This headlamp housing can fully comply with the requirements of functional performance (such as headlamp aiming adjustment, vibration resistance, and so on) specified in the applicable SAE J 580 a and b, "Sealed Beam Headlamp assembly," as referred to in the current FMVSS No. 108.

We would appreciate your interpretation of this information at your earliest possible convenience.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

M. YANADA for J. Kawano Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office

cc: M. V. ELLIOTT, OFC. OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, NHTSA

Attached Drawing

4 x 6 1/2 in. Rectangular Headlamp Retaining Ring

(Dimension: mm)

Retaining ring extended to a part of ornamental bezel

Note: "L": 92.98 +/- 1.30X133.42 +/- 1.30 (SAE required dimension)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-1.47

DATE: 10/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in responding to your letter of July 19, 1979, which requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. You asked whether placing the turn signal symbol on the turn signal control shown in your illustration so that the arrows are vertical would comply with the standard.

The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 of the standard requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The purpose of that requirement is to ensure quick and accurate indentification of the vehicle controls. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of Safety Standard 101-80. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle.

Since the symbols required by Safety Standard 101-80 were selected in order to facilitate international standardization and harmonization, it is important that they not be significantly altered from one vehicle to another. This is particularly important in order to ensure that drivers become familiar with the meaning of various symbols including the turn signal symbol.

However, Safety Standard 101-80 does permit manufacturers to supplement the symbols designated in Table 1 of the standard with additional words or symbols for the purpose of clarity. Therefore, nothing in the standard would prevent your company from adding additional symbols, such as curved thinner arrows next to the turn signal symbol, to indicate mode of operation.

SINCERELY,

9/11/79 - SECOND REQUEST

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

July 19, 1979

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

Dear Sir:

Subject: Request for Interpretation Turn Signal Control Identification FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays

Mack Trucks, Inc. will be introducing a new truck model later this year. The vehicle has been designed to comply with the current requirements of FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays. The attached photograph illustrates the instrument panel layout in a prototype vehicle. Since this vehicle is assembled in France, several features differ from current U.S. vehicle designs.

The turn signal control is located on the instrument panel to the lower left of the speedometer. This is a two function control in that horizontal movement switches the headlamps from low to high beam, while vertical movement activates the turn signals.

FMVSS 101-80 requires that this turn signal control be identified by a specified symbol and that the symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. As we interpret the regulation, the symbol must be rotated 90 degrees from the position shown in the photograph in order to comply with the requirement. However, we feel that this could be confusing because the operation of the turn signal control is vertical. Although we realize that the symbol is there to indicate the function, not the operation, we question whether a driver will understand what the symbol indicates. We believe it is more appropriate to orient the symbol as shown in the photograph so as to reduce the possibility of confusion. (Note: Please disregard the headlamp symbol next to the turn signal symbol on the control since it will not be there on production vehicles.)

We would appreciate your comments and/or recommendations on the orientation of the turn signal symbol as soon as possible since production of these vehicles is scheduled to begin September 1, 1979.

Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer-Vehicle Regulations and Standards

ATTACH.

bcc: L. F. DONNELLY; L. F. KASACZUN; E. PASCUAL; S. ROBSON; C. D. TREXLER

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht88-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/19/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1987, with respect to daytime running lamps (DRLs).

With reference to the Canadian proposal on this subject, you have noted that it would allow optically combining the DRL with the parking lamp, using dual intensity bulbs within the same housing and covered by the same lens. (As you may be aware, the Cana dian government recently issued a final rule which adopted the proposal). You have further noted that the maximum candela output of the parking lamp together with the candela of the DRL will be greater than the maximum permitted for the parking lamp. You believe that under this circumstance the parking lamp does not have to conform to the maximum values specified, and have asked for our opinion of this matter.

Under the proposal by the United States, a DRL would have to be a lamp other than a parking lamp (proposed new paragraph S4.6.3(a)), because their brightness is inadequate for use as DRLs. However, the DRL could be incorporated into a multiple function l amp, one of whose functions is to serve as a parking lamp. A lamp with multiple functions must meet all requirements that apply when a specific function is being fulfilled. For example, a lamp that functions both as a parking lamp and a DRL and which is operated in daylight could act as either a DRL or a parking lamp, depending on the intensity of the light emitted, but it would have to meet the photometric requirements for the function being exercised. We cannot really be more specific in answering you r questions, because we are still at the proposal stage of the rulemaking process. The final decision could differ.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 23, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 900 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Re. Daytime Running Lamp in the United States

Dear Ms. Jones,

Proposal of Daytime Running Lamp was issued in Canada. In this proposal, Daytime Running Lamp can optically combined with Parking Lamp using same housing and lens with dual intensity bulbs.

We would like to ask you following question on this combined DRL.

-Question-

On this combined DRL with Parking Lamp, DRL and Parking Lamp should be lit simultaneously when switch of Parking Lamp is "ON" position.

In that condition, maximum value of Parking Lamp together with DRL will be greater than the required maximum value of Parking Lamp.

Since, present FMVSS No.108 does not prescribe on DRL, it may be interpreted that the measured maximum value of Parking Lamp can not conform with the required maximum value of FMVSS No.108.

We think that Canadian made passenger car which equips with the combined DRL will go to the United States, in that case the Parking Lamp does not have to conform the required maximum value of FMVSS No.108.

We would like to ask you to give us NHTSA's opinions on this matter.

We appreciate for your quick reply.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Sect.

ID: nht88-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 29, 1988

FROM: J. E. CARR -- PRODUCT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF TERMS FOR FMVSS 124

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 11-9-88 TO J. E. CARR, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, STD 124

TEXT: The increasingly restrictive emissions requirements being specified make it imperative that Diesel Truck Engines have electronic engine controls. On many Caterpillar Truck Engines the traditional mechanical governor is being replaced by an Electronic Co ntrol Module (ECM). Caterpillar is asking NHTSA for interpretation of how the terms used in FMVSS 124 would be applied to an electronic system.

Regulation FMVSS 124, paragraph S5.2, concerns the throttle going to idle if there is a severance or disconnect in the accelerator control system. The accelerator control system is defined as all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control. When the mechanical governor and linkage is replaced by electronics and electrical wires, the distinction of what is part of the accelerator control system and what is part of the fuel metering device requires interpretation.

Attached is a sketch showing 3 types of accelerator control systems either in use or planned by Caterpillar.

Type I is a mechanical linkage pedal to a mechanical governor which moves a fuel rack. This is the mechanical system that has been in production for several years and is shown here for reference only.

Type II is a mechanical linkage connected to an accelerator pedal position sensor which is electrically connected to an Engine Control Module (ECM) and a Brushless Torque Motor (BTM) controling fuel injection by moving the fuel rack. The Caterpillar acce lerator pedal position sensor can be located at the OEM's option but is generally mounted on the engine compartment side of the firewall. Both the ECM and BTM are mounted on the engine. The ECM has a function similar to the mechanical governor in Type I in that it senses pedal position and engine speed along with several other factors and signals the BTM as to the desired amount of fuel to be injected.

Type III is a mechanical linkage to an accelerator pedal position sensor which is electrically connected to an ECM and to individual unit injectors. The ECM is mounted on the engine. The ECM senses pedal position and engine speed along with several oth er factors and signals the individual injectors as to the desired amount of fuel to be injected.

It is Caterpillar's position that in Type II and Type III Systems the term "Driver-Operated Accelerator Control System" includes all linkage and wiring up to the ECM. All other components shown in the sketch (except the battery) are part of the "Fuel Me tering Device".

Caterpillar would like confirmation from NHTSA that our interpretation of the definitions used in FMVSS 124 is correct. We would appreciate a prompt response. If you have any questions, please contact me or Jim McCollum on 309-675-5377.

SYSTEM COMPARISON

TYPE I

GOV RACK

Accelerator pedal

linkage

TYPE II

Accelerator pedal position sensor

Accelerator pedal

Bat.

ECM

BTM

RACK

TYPE III

Accelerator pedal position sensor

Accelerator pedal

ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEM

ECM

Bat.

FUEL METERING DEVICE

ID: tractor23131

Mr. Mark Ireland
Senior Engineer - Engineering Standards and Legislation
JCB Research
Rocester Saffordshire
England ST 1 4 5JP





Dear Mr. Ireland:

This responds to your letter received on May 18, 2001, asking for information about the application of glazing marking requirements to a range of construction, industrial and agricultural equipment. More specifically, you ask whether you should use "uniform/zone Toughened or Laminated glazing in the windshield and other cab areas in your machines and, also, whether glazing requirements change with the design speed of the machine." The following generally discusses:1) the applicability of our laws to your machines, and 2) glazing requirements based on the facts set forth in your letter. However, without specific information on a particular machine, we cannot provide an opinion as to whether our glazing standard is applicable to a particular machine as a "motor vehicle."

Motor Vehicle

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) issues and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. 49 USC' 30102(a)(6).

Whether NHTSA considers various pieces of construction, industrial or agricultural equipment to be motor vehicles depends on their use. In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-road use of the equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Other construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job

sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the information provided in your letter, we do not have sufficient information about the use of the equipment to determine whether they are motor vehicles. If, however, certain equipment is used frequently on the highways, they would be considered motor vehicles and would be required to comply with all applicable FMVSSs, including that pertaining to glazing as discussed below. If you write us again with more information about a particular vehicle, we would be happy to provide an interpretation as to whether it is a motor vehicle.

FMVSS No. 205

FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), establishes performance, location, certification, and marking requirements for all glazing installed in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference the requirements of Standard ANS Z26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," of the American National Standard Institute (Standard ANS Z26). Standard ANS Z26 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items") and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used.

Standard ANS Z26 requires that glazing for windshields must pass a specified group of test requirements. ANS Z26 specifies that glazing materials that comply with these test requirements for windshields must be marked with AS1. To date, the only glazing materials that have been marked with AS1 have been laminated safety glass. Unless the non-laminated glazing material cited in your letter can meet the requirements for AS1 glazing and are marked AS1, they do not comply with the requirements for windshields specified in Standard ANS Z26 or FMVSS No. 205. Finally, you should also be aware that FMVSS No. 205 permits glass-plastic glazing.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205
d.6/26/01

ID: 04-002102drn

Mr. A. Bret Miller
Director, Quality Control and Certification
Cool City, Inc.
10655 Mineral Wells Highway
Cool, TX 76088

Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems. You wish to know whether a prototype design of a three-wheeled motorcycle would meet FMVSS No. 122s requirement for "a parking brake of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement." As explained below, the answer is no.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

In your letter you describe your product, the "Sport Trike," as using "automotive (General Motors) disc brakes on all three wheels with a conventional hydraulic split service (master cylinder) brake system." You described the parking brake as follows:

The design contemplated for our vehicle would consist of a mechanical lever that would lock in place when applied while simultaneously applying leverage (pressure) to the service brake pedal mechanism to apply and hold the service brakes on all three wheels. The service brakes, while hydraulically applied, are of the standard automotive friction pad/caliper/disc type. This arrangement is quite similar to the method used for parking brake systems found on many aircraft.

Section S5.1.4, Parking brake, of FMVSS No. 122 states: "Each three-wheeled motorcycle shall be equipped with a parking brake of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement."

We have reviewed the written description of your parking brake design, which describes the service brakes on each of the three wheels as "hydraulically applied." We have also reviewed the drawing. Based on the drawing, we note that although the parking brake is actuated by a mechanical lever, the parking brake in fact is retained by hydraulic means. S5.1.4 specifies that a three-wheeled motorcycle must have a parking brake of a friction type "with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement." (Emphasis added.) The requirement for a three-wheeled motorcycle to have a parking brake with "solely mechanical means to retain engagement" would preclude a parking brake design relying even in part on hydraulics for retention of engagement. Thus, a three-wheeled motorcycle with your proposed parking brake design would not meet FMVSS No. 122.

The confidential drawing you provided has been returned under separate cover.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:122
d.5/4/04