ID: nht88-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/27/88

FROM: L.T. MITCHELL -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/03/89 EST; FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO L.T. MITCHELL -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 02/24/89 FROM DAN TREXLER -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; TO JOAN TILGHMAN -- NHTSA; LETTER DATE D 12/20/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO MELVIN SMITH -- ILLINOIS DOT

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

This letter is in reference to a letter written by Mr. Frank Berndt to Mr. Melvin Smith of the Illinois Department of Transportation dated December 20, 1984, in which Mr. Berndt gave an interpretation of one of the requirements of FMVSS 217, a copy is at tached for your information. This interpretation concerned the location of the back of a seat with relation to the forward edge of a side emergency door. Mr. Berndt's interpretation stated that there was no tolerance permitted for the location of the s eat back with reference to a transverse plane coincident with the leading edge of the side emergency door. This lack of tolerance is what we wish to address in this letter.

As I am sure you can appreciate, a requirement for an exact location opens the door to impossible manufacturing requirements. The seats themselves, due to the use of bent-tube welded construction, can vary in the slope of the back or the relative positi on of the seat cushion, by as much as one-half of an inch. The weld-generated deformations, though slight, will also cause relative movement of the seat during the installation process of bolting the seats to the floor. Therefore, if an exact relationsh ip of any part of the seat is a requirement by law, this becomes an extremely difficult goal to meet. It will usually result in the necessity for multiple reseatings, or the physical bending of the seat after it is installed (which requires a significan t amount of force because these are seats meeting the requirements of FMVSS 222), or attempts to deform the padding of the seat locally, or some other undesireable side effect.

In light of the above considerations, and our understanding that the principle intent of FMVSS 217 in this regard is to prevent a seat back from extending backward into the door opening, we request that the NHTSA consider the following interpretation as meeting the requirements of FMVSS 217:

1. A seat back may not intrude backward into the door opening through the transverse plane coincident with the leading edge of the door opening.

2. A seat back may be located ahead of this transverse plane by no more than three-quarters of an inch, plus or minus three-quarters of an inch, or within but no more than, one and one-half inches ahead of the transverse plane coincident with the lea ding edge of the door opening. (See Fig. 1)

We would appreciate your early consideration of this interpretation, because of the current unreasonable situation that has developed among our bus users in their attempts to inspect school-buses for their compliance with their interpretations of the FMV SS 217.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

FIG 1: ALLOWABLE SEAT POSITION AT A SCHOOL BUS SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR WHEN THE BUS ALSO HAS A REAR PUSHOUT WINDOW

[DRAWING OMITTED]

ID: nht88-2.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/88 EST

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

TO: C. DIANNE BLACK -- ENGINEERING MANAGER, JAGUAR CARS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-14-88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM C. DIANNE BLACK -- JAGUAR, REF: FMVSS 108, HEADLAMP LEVELLING SYSTEM

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 14, 1988, providing further information about the Jaguar headlamp levelling system discussed in your letters of June and October 1987 to which I responded on February 1, 1988.

We support your efforts to call the driver's attention to the fact that the system does not automatically return to the "zero" position from either of the two adjustment positions when those loading conditions no longer exist.

ID: nht88-2.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/88 EST

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

TO: ROBERT G. YORKS -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESS GROUP, TRUCK-LITTLE CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-24-88, TO KATHLEEN DEMETER, FROM ROBERT G. YORKS, 25220; MEMO UNDATED, TO ROBERT G. YORKS, FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER

TEXT: We have received your letter of May 24, 1988, withdrawing your request for confidential treatment of your letter of March 31 concerning the legality of a new safety lighting device. This letter also responds to your inquiry of July 14.

The device is described as a "combination center high-mounted stop lamp and cargo lamp". The functions are optically separate. The cargo lamp can illuminate the cargo box on pick-up trucks, while on vans and utility vehicles it serves as a "utility lig ht". The device is intended to be used as either original or aftermarket equipment.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting is Standard No. 108. As you know, the center high-mounted stop lamp is required only for passenger cars. Further, there is no requirement that a center lamp intended for other types of motor vehicles meet the passenger car lamp requirements (for example, those requirements would prohibit combining the center lamp with the cargo lamp). As neither function of your device is required on lighting equipment for vehicles other than passenger car s, Standard No. 108 permits the installation of your device as original equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard does require. Whether impairment exists is initially a determination of the manufacturer of the vehicle who certifies compliance with Standard No. 108. However, the issue of impairment is ultimately subject to a determination by this agency. Types of impairment that can exist include functional interference with the wiring of o ther lamps, creation of ambiguous or confusing signals to such a degree that it may obscure the message of lamps and reflectors required by Standard No. 108, and reduction of photometrics below the minimum levels specified.

As an item of aftermarket lighting equipment, it is subject to a restriction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that its installation by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business must not render inoperative i n whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard. We construe this prohibition strictly and equate it with impairment. If performance is "impaired," it can be viewed as "inoperative" with respect to achieving the purpose for which it has been installed.

Assuming that installation of an aftermarket device is not restricted by the Act, it nevertheless remains subject to the laws of a State in which the vehicle is registered and driven. We are not conversant with State laws on combination rear lamps, but you may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht88-2.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/88

FROM: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- SPECIFICATIONS MANAGER INDIANA MILLS AND MANUFACTURING INC

TO: ERICA Z. JONES, -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 EST TO WILLIAM E. LAWLER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel:

The publication of the final rule (53FR25337) pertaining to seat belts in trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR (FMVSS 208) on July 5, 1988, has prompted us to write to you.

Our discussions with engineers in the Crashworthiness Division since August 1985 have centered around our product called the "Komfort-Lok." This patented device has been used in the field for over two years with good customer satisfaction. Unlike the wor ding of the recent final rule, the Komfort-Lok is not a retractor but rather a mechanism external to the retractor itself but integral with the retractor but which eliminates webbing movement and thus eliminates cinching. The Komfort-Lok works in conjunc tion with an automatic locking retractor (ALR) regardless of the amount of webbing retracted between locking points at 75 percent webbing extension.

Because the Komfort-Lok is designed to work effectively with any ALR, we are writing to your office to request an official opinion permitting the use of any FMVSS 209-compliant-ALR in conjunction with the Indiana Mills Komfort-Lok as a complete retractor system to satisfy the requirements of FMVSS 208, Paragraphs S4.3.2.2 and S4.4.2.2 as stated in the 7-5-88 final rule.

We appreciate your attention to our request.

If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ALICE COLLINS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/15/88, TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM ALICE COLLINS

TEXT: Dear Mrs. Collins:

This is a response to your letter of January 15, 1988. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. In your letter, you described yourself as a parent of school-age children, and as a volunteer who drives children to school-related activitie s in your 1986 Plymouth Voyager mini-van. You stated that in the 1986-1987 school year, the U.S. Department of Transportation decided that Voyager Mini-Vans were "unsafe." You go on to say that "the classification of M.P.V. was used on all mini-vans," and suggest that it is a mistake to characterize your Voyager as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) because it is more like a passenger car than a truck. You concluded by asking us to change the decision that the Plymouth Voyager mini-van is unsafe. You raised other concerns in telephone conversations with Joan Tilghman, a member of my staff. First, I will address the request in your letter that the Department change what you believe is a decision concerning the safety of your vehicle. Then, I wi ll address the matters you raised in conversations with Ms. Tilghman.

Let me begin by assuring you that the agency has never stated that the Plymouth Voyager is "unsafe." Except in the context of a specific enforcement proceeding, NHTSA does not make blanket determinations that vehicles are "safe" or "unsafe." Instead, we establish safety standards, and manufacturers must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable standards. If we determine that a group of vehicles fails to comply with an applicable standard, or that a group of vehicles contains a d efect related to motor vehicle safety, we order the manufacturer to recall the vehicles. Again, we make these determinations only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. There has been no such proceeding with respect to the 1986 Plymouth Voyager.

With respect to your suggestion that it was a mistake to classify the Voyager as an MPV, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine, in the first instance, what a vehicle's classification should be. Chyrsler has classified the Voyager as an MP V, and so must certify that the Voyager meets all Federal safety standards applicable to that vehicle

2 class. We have no information which suggests that Chrysler's classification of the Voyager is incorrect under our classification criteria.

In your conversations with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that the Tallahassee, Florida school district will not permit parents to transport school children to school-sponsored or school-related events in MPVs, such as the Voyager. However, you stated that the district will permit parents to transport children to school-sponsored or school-related events in passenger cars. You said that the school district is following a recommendation by this agency that Florida school districts not condone transporting children to school-related events in buses other than certified school buses. Your understanding is that NHTSA made this recommendation to the State of Florida in an April 25, 1986 letter to Mr. Arnold Spencer, and repeated the recommendation in an Augu st 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Larry McEntire. I have enclosed copies of both letters for your information.

As you see, NHTSA made no such recommendation in either letter. Instead, we explained that we do not regulate the use of vehicles by owners, nor do we require the use of particular vehicles for particular purposes. There is no Federal prohibition again st vehicle owners using their own vehicles to transport school children to school-related events. We also noted that the individual States have authority to establish any such regulations, in accordance with the principles of federalism set out in our C onstitution. The State of Florida had already made its own decision to adopt and implement this policy before we were contacted by either Mr. Spencer or Mr. McEntire on this subject. Any changes to that policy would also reflect a decision by the State of Florida, not the Federal government.

In the letter to Mr. Spencer, we made the observation that Florida's policy that school boards not condone transporting school children in vehicles that are not certified as complying with our school bus safety standards, "is consistent with our belief t hat school buses certified to our school bus safety standards are the safest means of transportation for school children." This was not a recommendation to the State of Florida, but a statement of our belief about the superior safety afforded to school c hildren by buses that are certified as complying with our school bus standards. That belief continues to be supported by data showing that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are the safest form of ground transportation in the United States because the passenger seats are "compartmentalized" (special seat padding and spacing, and high seat backs); and because of the vehicle's size and weight (which generally reduce an occupa nt's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus.

3

I am sending you information on the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is an experimental program in which we test light-duty vehicles, MPVs among them, to see how well they perform in a high-speed crash. You will find test results for veh icles that NHTSA has tested over the past few years, including results for the 1984 and 1987 Plymouth Voyager. Also, you will find the agency's April, 1988 report to Congress titled, "Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles. "

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

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.