ID: nht88-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/88

FROM: C. E. SHUE -- MARYLAND STATE POLICE

TO: JOSEPH CIAMPA

TITLE: 0590630

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/27/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO BEVERLY B BYRON; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM NANCY F MILLER TO BEVERLY B BYRON; LETTER DATED 08/25/88 FROM BEVERLY B BYRON T. NANCY MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/24/88 FROM JOSEPH L. CIAMPA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ciampa:

We have received your Safety Equipment Repair Order and it is not acceptable. There is no provision in Maryland Law for an exception of vehicle window tinting.

We were advised by William Barnes of Smiths Service Center, Inspection Station#4712A, 1830 Liberty Road, Eldersburg, Maryland 21784, that he certified this repair order with the tinting still intact.

Enclosed is a duplicate repair order. You must remove the window tint and have this duplicated certified as soon as possible.

Any correspondence should be directed to Maryland State Police, A.S.E.D., 6601 Ritchie Highway, Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062 or call 768-1735 or 768-7388.

ID: nht88-2.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: BARRY NUDD -- ATWOOD MOBILE PRODUCTS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/28/87 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM BARRY NUDD; LETTER DATED 07/14?88 EST TO S. ROBSON FROM FRANK BERNDT, STANDARD 207

TEXT: Dear Mr. Nudd:

This responds to your letters concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, as it applies to seat adjusters and an interpretation of that standard which this agency issued on July 14, 1983 to Mack Trucks, Inc. ("Mack"). The Mack letter discussed problems related to testing heavy-duty truck seat adjusters on pedestal seats (i.e., seats which include a suspension system which are mounted on a pedestal-like structure). I regret the delay in responding and hope the following d iscussion answers your questions.

Your letter asks five questions about a seating system consisting of a bucket seat mounted on top of a pair of seat adjusters which are, in turn, attached to the top of a pedestal. Seat belt anchorages are attached to the pedestal. You characterize the main issue posed by your inquiry as "whether the weight of the pedestal should be added to the weight of the seat when calculating the force to be applied to the seat back for testing the compliance of the seat adjusters when mounted between the seat an d pedestal." You included with your letter two figures depicting a test procedure you use for Standard No. 207.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the m anufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The seat adjustment requirements with which you are concerned are set forth in paragraph S4.2.1 of Standard No. 207. That paragraph requires seats subject to the standard to "remain in [their] adjusted position during the application of each force speci fied in S4.2." Paragraph S4.2 provides, in pertinent part:

S4.2 General performance requirements. When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than a

side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces.

(a) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on [sic] the seat applied in a forward longitudinal direction; (b) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight of the seat applied in a rearward longitudinal direction;

(c) For a seat belt assembly attached to the seat--the force specified in paragraph (a), if it is a forward facing seat, or paragraph (b), if it is a rearward facing seat, in each case applied simultaneously with the forces imposed on the seat by the seat belt assembly when it is loaded in accordance with S4.2 of @ 571.210; * * *

* * * * *

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to begin with a discussion of two related issues raised by your letter. The first concerns the "due care" responsibilities of a manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with appl icable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This issue arises in each of your questions asking us whether the test procedures you use are permitted by Standard No. 207.

As you know, each safety standard specifies the test conditions and procedures that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of a test vehicle or item of equipment under the appropriate requirements. The agency precisely follows each of those spe cified test procedures in conducting its compliance testing. However, it is important to keep in mind that the Vehicle Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products in only the manner specified in a particular motor vehicle safety stand ard or even to test the product at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of that standard, provided, however, that the manufacturer exerci ses due care in ensuring that the vehicle or equipment will comply with Federal requirements when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. In other words, the manufacturer must show that his chosen means of evaluating c ompliance is a reasonable surrogate for the test procedure specified by the standard.

In the event that the agency determines an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment tested in the agency's compliance program, the manufacturer must show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies. Th e manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised due care in its designing and manufacturing of the product and in its checking (through actual testing, computer simulation or otherwise) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply. Of course, notwithstanding the exercise of due care, the manufacturer would still be subject to the

recall responsibilities of the Vehicle Safety Act for its noncomplying vehicles or equipment.

The second issue relates to your understanding of the agency's 1983 letter to Mack concerning the test of seat adjusters. In that letter, NHTSA addressed the issue of how a heavy-duty truck seat mounted on a pedestal-like structure can be loaded consist ent with Standard No. 207. The agency said:

a manufacturer could establish due care through a combined test procedure which would load the seat adjusters and upper seat section to only 20 times the weight of those components to determine if the seat would remain in its adjusted position, and wh ich would load the seat as anchored to the vehicle structure to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal.

You have concluded from the above-quoted language that:

the first portion of the procedure ... establishes that the seat adjusters meet the requirement of Standard No. 207, S4.2. The second portion of the test then establishes the compliance of the seat structure from the seat adjusters down to the pedest al mounting in the vehicle to the general requirements of S1 that seat attachment assemblies and their installation meet the standard as well as the seat itself.

I would like to clear up any misunderstanding on your part that the "combined" test procedure discussed in the Mack letter in effect revised Standard No. 207's requirements by establishing a sequential two-part test procedure which excludes the upper sea t structure, as manufactured on the vehicle, from the general performance requirements of S4.2. I note that some of your questions relate to this apparent misunderstanding of the Mack letter. The primary issue addressed in the agency's letter to Mack w as whether a manufacturer could meet the due care requirement when it tests its pedestal seats by using a procedure different from that specified in the standard. The interpretation did not exclude seat adjusters from the requirements of S4.2, as you ap pear to believe, or provide for a secondary test applying only to "the seat adjusters down to the pedestal mounting." Under Standard No. 207, the entire seat, including the upper seat structure and pedestal, is subject to the general performance requirem ents and force applications specified in S4.2. The seat adjusters must remain in their adjusted position during these force applications. (S4.2.1.)

In light of your letter, the agency has re-examined its statements in the Mack letter concerning whether a manufacturer could establish due care through the sequential two-part test procedure described therein. The procedure discussed in the letter to M ack for demonstrating compliance with Standard No. 207 subjects a seat specimen to a procedure different from that specified in the standard, with somewhat different load applications. Upon reexamination, we have determined that the real issue presented to the agency was not a question of due care (since the agency could not have made such a finding due to the fact that not every seat

passing the test described by Mack can meet the standard's requirements when tested according to the procedures in the standard). Instead, the real issue concerned the appropriateness of Standard No. 207's current requirements as applied to pedestal seats. In its letter to the agency, Mack said that its seat adjuster should not be subject to forces generated by the pedestal structure since the adjuster would experience the force of only the upper seat section in a crash. (You raised a similar iss ue in your letter.) In responding to Mack, the agency agreed that with pedestal-type seats, "the adjusters and upper seat section would never experience a loading of 20 times the weight of the entire seat in an actual crash." (Emphasis in text.) Acknowle dging an apparent discrepancy between the requirements of the standard for pedestal seat adjusters and real world crash conditions, the agency should have conducted rulemaking to determine whether Standard No. 207's requirements could be made more approp riate.

In light of the issues raised by your letter, we plan to initiate rulemaking on Standard No. 207's requirements for pedestal-type seats. Specifically, we will consider, among other issues, whether Standard No. 207 should be amended to adopt a modified test for pedestal seats similar but not necessarily identical to that described in the agency's letter to Mack. Until the issue is resolved by rulemaking, we will not take enforcement measures against a manufacturer who certifies that its seat adjusters conform to the requirements of S4.2.1 when that declaration is based on test results obtained from the test procedure described in the agency's letter to Mack.

Our statements in the preceding paragraph should not be misconstrued as implying, however, that your use of the two procedures you describe in your letter, which you said are modifications of the Mack procedure, establishes conformance to the standard. I will discuss this more fully below in answer to your five questions.

Your first question asks about the test method you use (depicted in your "figure 1") to evaluate the conformance of your seat adjusters with paragraphs S4.2(c) and S4.2.1. Your specific question is: "Does a load applied as in figure 1 satisfy the requir ements of Standard No. 207 concerning the seat adjusters remaining in their adjusted position?"

With regard to the current requirements of Standard No. 207, the answer to your question is no. Standard No. 207 requires seats to (a) withstand the specified forces of S4.2, and (b) remain in their adjusted position during application of those forces, and currently has no separate test for seat adjusters. Instead, the seat must remain in its adjusted position during the one test specified by the standard. A seat that fails to conform to Standard No. 207 when tested by the agency according to the sta ndard's test procedures is considered an apparent noncompliance. A noncompliant seat is not converted into a complaint one "satisfy[ing] the requirements of Standard No. 207" simply because it has "passed" a test conducted by the manufacturer.

However, in view of the agency's Mack letter and our plans to consider amending Standard No. 207's requirements for pedestal seat testing, we will interpret your question to ask further whether your figure 1

procedure is consistent with the test procedure described in the agency's Mack letter. With one change, the test procedure you use as shown in figure 1 is consistent with the procedure outlined in the agency's Mack letter for testing pedestal seats.

In order to be fully consistent with the Mack procedure, the lower seat structure (i.e., the pedestal) should be loaded to 20 times the weight of that component and the load should be applied at the pedestal's center of gravity simultaneously with "force D" in figure 1 (the force 20 times the weight of the seat belt anchorages, seat adjusters and upper seat frame) at the center of gravity of those components, and "force E" (the Standard No. 210 seat belt anchorage loads).

You should note also that while figure 1 appears to generally conform to the agency's statements in the Mack letter with regard to the proportionate load applied to the upper seat structure, Standard No. 207 requires the adjusters to sustain the specifie d forces in any position that is usable in actual operations. Therefore, the seat adjusters should be able to sustain the applied loads in not only the "full rearward" position depicted in figure 1, but also in all other usable positions.

Your next question referred to a test procedure depicted in your "figure 2" for testing seats to the performance requirements of S4.2. The test procedure depicted in figure 2 applies a force 20 times the weight of the upper seat structure and pedestal t hrough the center of gravity of the entire seat structure, together with the seat belt anchorage load of 5,000 pounds specified by Standard No. 210. The seat adjusters are shown in figure 2 as welded or locked together. You ask whether "the seat adjust er, having passed figure 1 loads [can be welded or] locked for the second part of the test . . ." (The agency's letter to Mack made no reference to welding or locking the seat adjusters.)

The answer to your question is that when NHTSA tests a seat such as that described in your letter, the agency will not weld or lock the seat adjusters. As discussed above, NHTSA does not prohibit a manufacturer from using any test procedure in its determ ination of compliance. However, whether a manufacturer could establish due care through the figure 2 test procedure cannot be determined prior to and apart from an actual enforcement proceeding. Among other things, the manufacturer would have to show i ts reasons for concluding that the test was a reasonable surrogate for the agency's complaince test specified in Standard No. 207. Since welding or locking seat adjusters artificially creates a condition not representative of seat adjusters in the real world, we urge that this reasoning be carefully considered and developed.

Your third question asks whether the test procedures shown in figures 1 and 2 establish due care. We have answered this question in our responses to your first two questions and will not repeat our discussion here.

In your fourth question, you asked "can the 20 times seat weight load as required in Standard No. 207 S4.2 be applied at the center of gravity of

the seat as more [sic] accurate alternative to application from a point outside the seat frame in the horizontal plane of the seat's center of gravity?

We interpret your question to ask about either: (1) a manufacturer's obligation to test its seats as specified in Standard No. 207; or (2) the adequacy of the standard's present test procedure for pedestal seats. With regard to the first issue, as expla ined above, you are permitted to apply the S4.2 loads at the seat's center of gravity if, in the event that the agency tests according to the standard and finds a noncompliance, you can demonstrate that you did not have reason to know, in the exercise of due care, that the seat was not in compliance. In other words, the decision to rely upon your test instead of the test in the standard must be shown to be an exercise of due care.

As to the second issue, your letter did not demonstrate why the manner of applying the loads specified in Standard No. 207 should be changed. In your letter, you said the seat frame could significantly deflect as a result of forces acting on the frame t hat are higher than those required by the standard "[i]f the seat frame is excessively flexible and the braces [specified by the standard for testing seats to S4.2 were] not used." (Emphasis added.) It is unclear to us how your statement supports a chang e to the test procedures of S5 of the standard. Presumably, the cross-member placed on the seat in the horizontal plane of the seat's center of gravity ensures that the applied force remains in the horizontal plane and that the larger moment you observe d on the seat attachment would not occur. In addition, your suggestion raises practicability issues since the center of gravity of a tested seat could vary over the duration of the test.

If you believe Standard No. 207's test procedures should be amended as described in your fourth question, you may submit a petition for rulemaking to NHTSA in accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 5 52. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of this and any other NHTSA regulation.

Your fifth and final question relates again to your figures 1 and 2. You ask:

Can the seat belt load in figure 1 be eliminated based on the reasoning that an identical floor mounted seat and belt anchorage are not required to sustain the seat belt load and that the second part of the test, figure 2, subjects the seat assembly t o the load to check the seat attachment assembly (pedestal) for compliance with Standard No. 207? . . . [A] pedestal mounted seat assembly should be permitted to have the tracks welded or locked together while the loads of 4.2(c) check the seat attachme nt assemblies to the general requirement of Standard No. 207.

As explained above, if you decide to eliminate the seat belt load from the forces applied to your seats, you must ensure that the seat will be able to meet the requirements of Standard No. 207 when tested in

accordance with the procedures specified in the standard. The agency is unable to make a determination outside the context of an enforcement proceeding whether your decision to eliminate the seat belt load or to weld certain components together conf orms to the due care requirement. However, we recommend that you reconsider your reasons for eliminating the seat belt load--i.e., that the load is unnecessary because "an identical floor mounted seat and belt anchorage are not required to sustain the s eat belt load."

Standard No. 207 is intended to ensure that seats and their attachments are strong enough not to fail as a result of "forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact." (S1) A seat that has no seat belt anchorage attached to it will not see the load f rom the seat belt in a crash. Accordingly, since the seat will not be loaded in a crash by the forces generated by the safety belt, it is not imperative that the seat be capable of withstanding the load from the belt. Thus, the seat need not be subjecte d to the seat belt anchorage loads of Standard No. 210.

On the other hand, a seat with seat belt anchorages attached thereto will be subject to forces generated by the belted occupant in a crash. It is necessary, therefore, that the seat be capable of providing occupant protection by remaining in place and w ithstanding the forces imposed on it in a crash, including that from the safety belt.

I hope this information answers your questions. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/88

FROM: ARTHUR J LOMANT

TO: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/27/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO BEVERLY B BYRON; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205 LETTER DATED 08/01/88 FROM C. E. SHUE TO JOSEPH CIAMPH JR RE 0590630; LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM NANCY F MILLER TO BEVERLY B BYRON; LETTER DATED 08/25/88 FROM BEVERLY B BYRON TO NANCY MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/24/88 FROM JOSEPH L. CIAMPA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON

TEXT: My patient, Mr. Joseph Ciampa, Jr. -- diabetic with history of severe headache made worse by strong sunlight -- clearly benefits from the use of sun blocking shades in his automobile.

ID: nht88-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 4, 1988

FROM: TAYLOR HONG -- PRESIDENT, FAIR SUN INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., TAIPEI, TAIWAN

TO: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

TITLE: TURN SIGNAL FLASHERS FOR FOR "DOT" APPROVAL

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated September 13, 1989 to Taylor Hong, Fair Sun Industrial Co., Ltd. from Stephen P. Wood, NHTSA; [Redbook A34; Std. 108]

TEXT: We are a manufacturer of above said items and are planning to sell this item to U. S. A. Market. To determine compliance of our Flashers with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and to get an "DOT" approval, we would ask for your help the foll ows:

1). How we get an "DOT" approval?

2). Should ask for an application forms from you and send one lot of samples for your test? Or 3). We may send samples to any other Laboratory and get an approval? We appreciate your kind reply to our this letter. Thank you and we are

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht88-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KOJI TOKUNAGA -- MANAGER, ENGINEERING, ISUZU MOTORS AMERICA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-27-87, FMVSS 124-ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS, OCC-448, DET-87-063

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry in which you ask a number of questions concerning Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 124 Accelerator Control Systems. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you describe a new acceler ator control system that operates through electrical rather than mechanical signals.

You state that the moving components of this system are the accelerator pedal, stepping motor arm, linkage, and the throttle lever. When a driver depresses the accelerator pedal, a pedal sensor converts the displacement into a proportional electric sign al. The signal goes through a control unit to a position switch, and then to a stepping motor. This stepping motor works to move the motor's arm and linkage, and they in turn work the throttle lever. Therefore, you say, the engine speed is controlled i n proportion to the amount of accelerator pedal displacement.

You further inform us that Isuzu already has distributed vehicles equipped with this system in Japan, and that the company would like to market this kind of vehicle in the United States. You present three questions and a diagram of the system components , and request an agency response.

First, please be aware that in issuing this interpretation, NHTSA is neither approving, certifying, nor endorsing your new accelerator control system. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer must certify that its produ ct meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. However, based on the information you supplied in your letter, I have the following responses.

Question 1: In this vehicle, Isuzu considers the battery that drives the stepping motor to be one of the energy sources under S5.1, and the return springs (accelerator pedal and throttle lever return springs) the other sources. Is this interpretation correct?

P2

We do not have enough information to state whether the battery that drives the stepping motor, or the return springs would be considered energy sources under S5.1. Section S5.1 of Standard 124 requires, among other things, that there be a minimum of two energy sources capable of returning the throttle to idle whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force, or if there is a single severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system.

With respect to the battery, if all system elements are operating properly, then it would appear that removing the actuating force will cause the electrical circuit from accelerator pedal sensor to stepping motor to return the throttle to idle. On the o ther hand, if there is a failure caused by a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system between the pedal and the stepping motor, it is not clear to me whether the stepping motor will return to zero, and bring the throttle springs back to idle; or lock the arm and linkage in an "open-throttle" position.

Similarly, it is not clear to me that the accelerator pedal and throttle return springs are capable of returning the throttle to idle in the event of a failure caused by an ACS severance or disconnection. (While you include the throttle lever in your des cription of the accelerator control system, the agency considers it as part of the fuel metering device. However, as NHTSA explained in the preamble to 124, an energy source under the Standard may be attached to the fuel metering device. [37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972.]) Ordinarily, the agency would have no difficulty in finding that either of the throttle return springs is an energy source capable of returning the throttle to idle. But I cannot tell from your description and diagram whether a seve rance or disconnection in the electrical system would cause the throttle to lock in a position other than idle.

I would make the same observation with respect to the accelerator pedal. I can not tell from the information you supplied what impact a severance or disconnection failure would have on the pedal. For example, it is not apparent whether some element in the electrical system senses a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system, so that a sensor transmits a signal to the appropriate energy sources that the throttle should return to idle. If the pedal and return springs can operate mecha nically and in concert to return the throttle to idle in the event of a failure in the accelerator control system caused by a severance or disconnection, then together they may be an energy source under the Standard.

Question 2a: Is a severance in electric wires in this system a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2? Isuzu considers negative because electric wires are not a moving part.

A severance or disconnection of the electric wires in this system would be a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2 of Standard 124.

Section S4.1 of Standard 124 defines a "driver-operated accelerator control system" as

"all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force."

You stated in your letter that, in this new system, when the driver depresses the accelerator pedal, the mechanical displacement is converted into electrical signals. These electrical signals are transmitted by wires to a control unit that regulates eng ine speed in direct response to pressure on the accelerator pedal, again by means of wires that connect the control unit's electrical signal to the appropriate components. Thus, the control unit, all of the components to which it is connected, and the w ires that make those connections are "vehicle components... that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force." Under S4.1, then, the control unit, the components to which it is connected, and the wires that make the connection are components of the driver-operated accelerator control system.

Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires that the throttle return to idle "from any accelerator position or any speed...whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point." Please note that this languag e does not limit the requirement to disconnections or severances of components that are moving parts. Thus, all severances or disconnections of any component of the accelerator control system are within the ambit of the standard. In this case, since th e wires are a component of the accelerator control system, the throttle must return to idle whenever a wire is disconnected or severed.

Question 2b: If a severance in electric wires were a severance or disconnection under S5.2, what about a short-circuiting that may result from such a severance? Does the Standard require that the throttle returns to the idle position even in such a c ondition?

Yes. Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires the throttle to return to the idle position whenever any component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point, regardless of the other consequences of the disconnection or se verance. In the case of this system, this language requires the throttle to return to idle when any wire is severed, even if the severance results in a short circuit.

Question 2c: Our understanding is that a failure (other than severance or disconnection) of a system component itself (i.e. a failure in the accelerator pedal sensor with pedal position switches, control unit, throttle valve position switch, or steppi ng motor) is not subject to the throttle return requirement under the Standard. Is this correct?

Your understanding is partially correct. Standard 124 addresses those circumstances where (1) the driver removes the opposing actuating force; and (2) a severance or disconnection in the ACS causes a failure. Therefore, you are correct that Standard 12 4 addresses only those

failures resulting from a severance or disconnection within the system. However, for electrical systems, shorted or open circuits are the consequence of a change in one or more of the electrical components in the system. The agency would consider such a change a disconnection or severance in the context of this Standard.

Question 3: It is our interpretation that the battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit are not a part of the accelerator control system under this definition. (That is, the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system.") Is this interpretation correct?

No, your interpretation is incorrect. We have set out the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system" in section S4.1 above, in response to your Question 2a. With respect to your electrical accelerator control system, the electrical impu lse that travels between the vehicle battery and the control unit is a direct consequence of the driver's applying an actuating force to the accelerator pedal. Given this aspect of your system's design, both the vehicle battery and the electric wires fr om the battery to the control unit fall within the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system."

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht88-2.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WARD W. REESER -- PROJECT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/04/87 TO TAYLOR VINSON FROM W.W. REESER, OCC-1383

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reeser:

I am writing in response to your December 4, 1987 letter in which you described Caterpillar Inc.'s worldwide program to review lighting used on Caterpillar product lines in order to standardize the devices. You specifically asked if any of Caterpillar's lighting devices were covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FVSS) 108. You enclosed descriptive literature on the Caterpillar product line. I regret the delay in responding to your question.

It must be noted at the outset that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." Therefore, Standard 108 and all of our other regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehi cle qualifies as a "motor vehicle" under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Section 102(3) of the Act defines "motor vehicle" as: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufact ured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles because Congress clearly did not intend to include them in its coverage. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., Airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable o f highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-ro ad operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact use d on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

As noted above, this agency has consistently interpreted "motor vehicle" to exclude vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel. Therefore, the track-type tractors, excavators, track-type loaders, tracked pavement profilers PR-450, PR-750B and PR-1000, concrete slipform pavers & auxiliary equipment, finegraders, front shovels, swing machines, tracked skidders D4H and D5H are not considered to be "motor vehicles."

In your letter, you described the Caterpillar line of construction and industrial equipment as basically for off-highway use: "There are occasional uses on the highway for such equipment as motor graders, but obviously none of this equipment is designed for normal highway use or for the transportation of people." Despite their use of the highway, some vehicles are expected from the motor vehicle classification. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers , and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered "motor vehicles."

Although many items in the Caterpillar product line have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles, the product literature enclosed with your letter did not provide sufficient information on the maximum speed capabilit ies or intended uses (i.e., strictly off highway or occasional on-highway use) of the motor graders, off-highway tractors, articulated dump trucks, wheel tractors, compactors, landfill compactors, wheel loaders, integrated toolcarriers, backhoe loaders, pavement profilers PR-75, PR-105 and PR-275, asphalt pavers & auxiliary equipment, compaction equipment, skidders, pipelayers, scrapers, and off-highway trucks to enable me to make a determination whether these would be considered "motor vehicles." Howev er, I believe that the guidelines for classifying vehicles that are set forth above will allow you to determine if these are "motor vehicles." If they are, they must comply with safety standards, including Standard 108, applicable to trucks.

The lighting devices and other features of "motor vehicles" would be required to comply with the FMVSS (49 CFR Part 571). As you are aware, Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR @ 571.108) specifies requirements f or original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment necessary for signaling and

for the safe operation of motor vehicles during darkness and other conditions of reduced visibility.

Finally, the product literature included several items which did not appear to be self-propelling, including the asphalt drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment items TSF-54 and TSM-54. These products fall within NHTSA's jurisdiction if th ey are "trailers" as that term is defined at 49 CFR @571.3. That section defines "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

Based on the depiction in the brochure, the equipment appear to be designed for carrying property (drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment) and for being drawn by another vehicle. Therefore, whether the equipment are trailers depends on wh ether they are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act and on whether the vehicles the equipment are designed to be drawn by are "motor vehicles." Specific information has not been provided about the intended uses of the equipment. If they make frequent use of the highways, and stay at one particular job site for a limited amount of time, the items mentioned above would be motor vehicles, and woul d fall within the definition of "trailers." Trailers are subject to Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If, on the other hand, the equipment are intended to be drawn by vehicles that are not motor vehicles, or the equi pment stays at a job site for extended periods of time and it travels on the highways only to move to another job site for an extended stay, the equipment would not be considered motor vehicles.

It is important to note that NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product.

I hope the information provided above will be useful to you and to Caterpillar, Inc. If there are any further questions or if you need further information, please do not hesitate to write to me.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Texas State Purchasing & General Service Commission Austin, Texas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Troy C. Martin Specifications/Inspections Chief Texas State Purchasing & General Service Commission Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Bldg. P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This is a response to your letter of last year where you stated your concern respecting the installation of "latches" on the rear doors of a school bus of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR (small school bus), and asked a number of questions on release mechanisms f or required rear emergency doors on these small school buses. I regret the delay in this response.

You said that the State of Texas has a school bus specification that requires "the first-closed (left-hand) door)" to have a latching mechanism at the top and bottom. Your supplier tells you that this specification conflicts with provisions of Federal sa fety standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (Standard 217). You go on to express your concern that a single mechanism would hold both doors closed, and that this feature increases the risk of injury from accidental or intentional opening. You bel ieve that where a small school bus has two rear doors, if each door is secured independently, then there is a decreased risk of a student' s falling through a door opened inadvertently.

Let me begin my answer with some general information on the requirement for a rear emergency door in a small school bus. As your supplier suggests, there can be instances where independently securing the rear doors on a small school bus would violate Sta ndard 217. Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires a manufacturer of these buses to install either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) one emergency door on the vehicle' s left side and one push-out rear window. Where a manufacturer chooses to meet this requirement by installing one rear emergency door, the door may be hinged on either side of the vehicle.

When a manufacturer installs more than one rear door exit, the question of whether both exits are "emergency doors" under paragraph S5.2.3.1 of Standard 217 depends upon whether one or both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of a specified par allelepiped under paragraph S5.4.2.2. The purpose of the school bus emergency exit requirements is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit from the vehicle in the event of an emergency. (44 FR 7961, 7962, February 8, 1979.)

Question 1: Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered "emergency doors" in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217?

If a manufacturer installs more than one rear door on a small school bus, and intends one door to be a rear emergency door under S5.2.3.1 and one to be a regular door for loading and unloading passengers, then the designated rear emergency door is a suff icient sear emergency exit so long as it will permit unobstructed passage of the device specified in paragraph S5.4.2.2 of the Standard. In a case such as this one, the manufacturer must label the emergency door appropriately, and otherwise ensure that t he designated rear emergency door meets the performance, accessibility, and release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus .

On the other hand, if the manufacturer installs two rear doors on a small school bus, and if both of those doors must be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, then both doors constitute a rear emergency exit under S5.2.3.1. In this case, the two doors together must meet the applicable provisions of Standard 217.

There is yet another possibility that a manufacturer may install a second rear exit and designate it as an emergency exit. Assuming that at least one exit meets Standard 217's requirements for a rear emergency door exit, NHTSA would not prohibit installi ng this additional emergency exit. However, as the agency long has held, that "extra" emergency exit must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses.

Question 2: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require separate, independent operation: that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment?

Again, the answer to this question depends upon whether one door can meet the unobstructed test measurement for a required sear emergency door. Let me begin this answer by explaining the release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bu s.

Under paragraph S5.3.3, a required small school bus rear emergency door generally must have a release mechanism that allows (1) a single person (2) to operate the door manually (3) from in or outside the vehicle's passenger compartment without the use of remote controls or tools (4) irrespective of whether the vehicle's power system fails. (Paragraph S5.3.3 also sets the maximum permissible magnitude of force and the permissible direction in which a force must be applied to operate the release mechanism .)

In an interpretation of March 17, 1982, this agency stated that the release mechanism is the mechanism that keeps the door from opening. In other words, the release mechanism is that you refer to in your letter as the door "latch." If the test device des cribed in my answer to your first question passes through unobstructed only when both doors are open, then the door release mechanism must be operable for both doors from inside the vehicle passenger compartment irrespective of whether a person outside t he vehicle operates the outside release mechanism. Further, this same release mechanism must be operable from outside the vehicle. In this circumstance, a separate release mechanism for each door would not comply with the Standard.

If only one door needs to be open, and the manufacturer has designated the second door as an emergency exit, then this additional emergency door still must be operable from inside the passenger compartment. In this case, independent release mechanisms ma y be appropriate, but a release mechanism on an additional emergency exit need not be operable from outside the vehicle. (S5.3.2.)

If only one door needs to be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, and the manufacturer neither intends the second door to be an emergency door, nor designates it as an emergency exit, then the second door is a regular door for loading and unloading pa ssengers. Standard 217 would be inapplicable to this second door.

Question 3: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened t o insert the 45" high by 22" wide x 6" deep parallelepiped?

If both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of the specified parallelepiped, then there must be a single emergency release mechanism (or latch) for both doors. In a case such as this, there must be an audible alarm under S5.3.3 whenever the rel ease mechanism is not closed and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." That alarm should sound if either door is unsecured.

Question 4: Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelepiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand doo r closed?

In your question, the manufacturer may designate either door as the required S5.2.3.1 emergency exit if the door accommodates the test device. The warning system then must sound when the release mechanism on the designated rear emergency door is open and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." For example, if in your question, the manufacturer designated the right-hand door as the required rear door emergency exit, then the warning system must sound whenever the release mechanism for that door is open and the vehicle ignition position is "on." As I stated in Question 1, the second rear door could be an "additional" emergency exit, or a regular means for loading and unloading passengers; then the additional door would have to meet such other requirements a s may apply to these exits.

Question 5: Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelepiped even though the left-hand door is close by the latches of the right-hand door?

In this circumstance, Standard 217 would prohibit installing a separate release mechanism on each door. Recall that S5.2.3.1 requires on a small school bus, "one rear emergency door," or one side door and one push-out window. If the manufacturer chooses to install the rear emergency door, then under S5.4.2. 2, the specified parallelepiped must pass through that rear emergency door without obstruction. If both doors must be open to accommodate the test device, then both doors constitute the single, rear emergency door which the Standard requires. Under paragraph S5.3.3, the required rear emergency door must have its own release mechanism.

I Hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We have a question concerning the installation of latches on small van conversion buses that have two rear doors that act or may act as emergency doors. We have in our Texas school bus specifications a requirement that the first-closed (left-hand) door be equipped with latching mechanisms top and bottom. Collins Industries, one of our suppliers of this type of bus, claims that they cannot meet our requirement because it is in conflict with the provisions of FMVSS No. 217.

We are concerned about this door not having any latching mechanisms at all, since, if Collins is correct, this door would be held close only by the right-hand door. One could envision situations in which several children could be seated or standing in th e immediate vicinity of these doors (even behind the last row of seats or in the isle immediately ahead of the emergency doors) at the time the right-hand door was accidentally or intentionally opened. Of course, the driver would be immediately notified by the ringing of the buzzer (if it were operational) that the emergency door was opened, but by the time the driver could take any action, both doors could be open and a student could fall from the back of the bus. We maintain that in this situation, if the first-closed (the left-hand) door is latched independently or the last-closed (right-hand) door, there would be less chance of a student fa lling out of the bus should the right-hand door be opened while the bus is underway.

I would appreciate your addressing the following questions:

1. Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered "emergency doors" in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1. of FMVSS No. 217?

2. Does Paragraph S5.3.3. require separate, independent operation; that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment?

3. Does Paragraph S5.3.3. require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened to insert the 45" high by 22" wide x 6" deep parallelopiped?

4. Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelopiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand door closed?

5. Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelopiped even though the left-hand door is held close by the latches of the right-hand door?

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Troy C. Martin

Specifications/Inspections Chief

ID: nht88-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88

FROM: JACK SATKOSKI -- SPECTRA ENTERPRISES

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Jack Satkoski (Std. 201; Std. 302; VSA 108(A)(2)(a))

TEXT: I have enclosed five sketches and a photograph of a sun visor extender being developed for market at Spectra Enterprises. The product is called the ADD-VISOR and consists of a magnetic base and moveable panel that attaches by means of velcro straps to t he existing auto, truck, or RV's sun visor. The moveable panel is designed so that it can be positioned in areas to block the sun not covered by existing sun visors.

The size of the product is 11.5 in by 4.5 in., has rounded corners, and is made from soft and flexible vinyl related magnetic materials.

Can you please advise and send me copies if applicable, any federal standards this product will have to meet prior to marketing. I also require suggestions on similar contacts to make at the state level for possible standards that may apply.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Sincerely

enclosures

ID: nht88-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88

FROM: ALAN S. ELDAHR -- OPTIMUM BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PRESIDENT

TO: ERICA JONES -- CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/17/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ALAN S. ELDAHR; REDBOOK A34; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you for the information you sent us on Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. My company is interested in producing a small LED display reader board for use in private vehicles. The unit will measure approximately 1 1/2" x 12" and will display messages programmed by the driver.

This can be accomplished in one of two ways. First, we can incorporate both the LED display and the high mounted stop lamp into one unit. The unit will be mounted on the vertical center line (as required for the stop lamp). Messages will display until the service brakes are applied, at which time the stop lamp will come on as usual.

The second alternative is to produce the LED display as a separate unit, also to be placed in the rear window. This unit can either display messages continuously, or stop when service brakes are applied (as above).

Both units will comply with all other safety standards: photometric requirements, visibility ranges and bulb replacement, and neither shall impair the effectiveness of any other lighting equipment required by the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We would appreciate a reply with your comments and input on any problems you might forsee with our format or design.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/09/88

FROM: BLANCHE G. KOZAK

TO: CHIEF COUNCIL LEGAL DEPT. U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BLANCHE KOZAK; REDBOOK A33 [2]; VSA 108 [A] [1] [A]; LETTER DATED 04/04/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO CHESTER ATKINS -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 03/29/89 FROM CHESTER G. ATKINS -- HOUSE TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT, RE MRS. BLANCHE KOZAK; LETTER DATED 09/26/88 FROM BLANCHE KOZAK TO BERRY FELRICE; LETTER DATED 10/16/79 FROM EDWIN P. RIEDEL; REPORT UNDATED

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam;

Please be informed that I spoke to Ms. Williams, Supervisor NHTSA, on Aug. 9, 1988 and was advised to request a written statement from the Legal Dept. in regards to the Cushman Vehicle, Model #404. It is my understanding that the "on-road Cushman Veh icle is classified as a motorcycle under the current definitions found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Vol. 49, Part 571.3." by Barry Felrice of the Dept. of Transportation on July 22, 1988 to Rep. James J. Florio.

My question is in regards to the Model # 404 which is the Off-road design manufactured by O.M.C. Lincoln Cushman-Ryan and sold by The Sawtelle Bros. for on road use in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. When and by whom was this vehicle authoruzed fo r on road use as a motor vehicle and not a motorcycle.

This information was requested of me by my State Senator for the purpose of having it in writing to present to the committee in the process of filing a bill on the State Level to have these Cushman Vehicles regulated in the Commonwealth of Massachuset ts.

My Husband was killed on a Cushman Model # 404 while working for the Lawrence General Hospital on Dec. 9, 1980. This vehicle was sold to the LGH for on road use, for further information you may refer to my report of the accident to NHTSA on June 11, 1988.

Thank you very much for your anticipated response to my plea.

Gratefully yours