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: nht88-3.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KUNIO SHIMAZU -- GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. OFFICE - TOYOTA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: FEBRUARY 26, 1988 LETTER FROM SHIMAZU TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you were concerned with the requirements for positioning automatic safet y belts on the test dummy prior to dynamic testing. You noted that, before conducting compliance testing of vehicles with automatic belt systems, section S10.5.2 of Standard No. 208 necessitates the following step: "Ensure that the upper torso belt lies flat on the test dummy's shoulder after the automatic belt has been placed on the test dummy." You asserted that this section does not clearly specify the belt path or how the belt is to be positioned on the dummy's shoulder. You further expressed your concern that, during the agency compliance testing, test personnel might believe that they are prohibited from adjusting the belt path on the dummy after the door has been shut for any reason other than the belt's failure to lie flat on the test dummy's shoulder. You asserted that, if NHTSA does not adjust the belt path as you have suggested for its compliance testing of vehicles with automatic belts, the compliance testing will be insufficiently representative of "real-world" performance of the automa tic belts.

Standard No. 208 does provide for adjustment of automatic belts only if the belt fails to lie flat on the test dummy's shoulder. Belt systems that require some additional deliberate actions by the vehicle occupant to provide effective crash protection f or the occupant are not automatic belt systems within the meaning of Standard No. 208, as explained below.

Standard No. 208 has always permitted manufacturers to comply with its requirement for automatic crash protection by any means that "requires no action by vehicle occupants." See 35 FR 14941; September 25, 1970. Automatic safety belts that require no ac tion by vehicle occupants are one means of satisfying the requirement for automatic crash protection. On April 25, 1974 (39 FR 14593), the agency issued an interpretation of this concept, in which the agency said that it would not consider a belt

system that had to be manually moved out of the way by the occupant to be an "automatic" system within the meaning of Standard No. 208. The following discussion also appeared, at 39 FR 14594:

The question of what constitutes "no action by vehicle occupants" in a vehicle equipped with (presumptively) passive belts is best considered in two stages: (1) Entry and exit from the vehicle, and (2) positioning of the belt for safety and comfort.

* * *

The second question relates to the usefulness of the system once the occupant has been seated. The essence of a passive system is that it provides at least the minimum level of protection without relying on occupant action to deploy the restraint. A t this stage, then, the question is whether an occupant who has seated himself without taking any "additional action" is in fact protected in a 30 mph impact. This can be measured by conducting the impact tests with the belt positioned on the test dummy in the orientation that results when a human occupant enters the vehicle according to the first test described above. It would not be required that the belt position itself for maximum comfort of the human occupant, if it met the safety requirements. For example, if the belt were to fall across the upper arm instead of the clavicle, but still passed the test, the system would be considered conforming.

After further consideration, the agency tentatively concluded that its interpretation might have been too stringent in suggesting that a belt system that had to be manually moved out of the way by an occupant to enter or exit the vehicle would not be con sidered an automatic belt system for purposes of Standard No. 208. The agency sought public comment on this tentative conclusion in an April 12, 1985 notice (50 FR 14580). The four commenters that responded to this request all concurred with the agency 's judgment that the 1974 interpretation was too stringent, and the agency revised its interpretation in a November 6, 1985 rule (50 FR 46056). The following discussion appears at 50 FR 46064:

. . . The concept of an occupant protection system which requires "no action by vehicle occupants," as that term is used in Standard No. 208, is intended to designate a system which will perform its protective restraining function after a normal proce ss of ingress or egress without separate deliberate actions by the vehicle occupants to deploy the restraint system. Thus, the agency considers an occupant protection system to be automatic if an occupant has to take no action to deploy the system but w ould normally slightly push the safety belt webbing aside when entering or exiting the vehicle or would normally make a slight adjustment in the webbing for comfort. . . . (Emphasis in original)

This interpretation was added to the end of Standard No. 208 to make clear that a belt system requires "no action by vehicle occupants" if the occupant must slightly push the webbing when entering or exiting the vehicle or if the occupant must make a sli ght adjustment to improve comfort. This interpretation neither said nor implied that a belt system

that must be adjusted to provide effective occupant protection would be considered an automatic belt system for the purposes of Standard No. 208. Indeed, since the vehicle occupant would have to take separate deliberate actions to deploy such a belt syst em, the interpretation makes clear that such a system would not be considered an automatic belt system.

The positioning procedures for automatic belts reflect this understanding of what constitutes an "automatic" belt system. Such procedures were added to Standard No. 208 in a September 5, 1986 final rule (51 FR 31765). The following discussion appeared in the preamble to that rule: In the agency's NCAP testing, the only adjustment NHTSA has made to an automatic belt once it has been deployed on the test dummy is to ensure that the belt is lying flat on the test dummy's shoulder when the belt is in its final position. The agency is adopting the same procedure for the Standard No. 208 compliance test. 51 FR 31766.

An adjustment to ensure that the belt webbing is not twisted on the test dummy's shoulder is the sort of adjustment that would normally be made by a vehicle occupant for comfort. Hence, this type of adjustment in compliance testing is consistent with th e November 6, 1985 interpretation of automatic belt systems for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

NHTSA intentionally did not provide for any further adjustments of automatic belts prior to Standard No. 208 compliance testing, because automatic belts require no action by vehicle occupants. Any belt systems that need some further adjustments to offer effective occupant protection require some action by vehicle occupants, and therefore are not automatic belt systems for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

ID: 1985-03.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steven W. Crowell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 13, 1985 Mr. Steven W. Crowell 29 Mansfield Street Allston, MA 02134 Dear Mr. Crowell: Thank you for your March 8, 1985 letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch of this office asking several questions concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency. I sincerely regret the delay in responding to your letter; however, I hope the following discussion will be of assistance to you. You first asked whether our safety standards apply to auxiliary interior equipment installed in motor vehicles. The answer is yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and equipment (103), prohibits the sale or manufacture of new vehicles and equipment which do not meet those standards (108(a)(1)(A)), establishes civil penalties for non-complying vehicles and equipment (109(a)), and requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any non-compliances (154(a)). A copy of the Act is enclosed for your information. In addition, the Act requires certification of compliance with applicable safety standards (114). This requirement applies to manufacturers of equipment, with regard to those items of equipment, and to vehicle manufacturers, with regard to the entire vehicle. Thus, if auxiliary interior equipment is installed in a vehicle prior to first sale, the equipment manufacturer must certify compliance with any safety standards applicable to the item of equipment, and the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the entire vehicle (including items of equipment) complies with all applicable standards. You also asked specifically about the applicability of certain safety standards to interior partitions: Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (dashboards and seatbacks), No. 205, Glazing Materials (windows), and No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (safety belts and other restraint systems). Only Standard No. 205 directly applies to interior partitions. However a vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicles comply with applicable safety standards, even if an interior partition or other auxiliary equipment is installed. For example, Standard No. 111 requires that a rearview mirror provide a minimum field of view for a driver. If the rearview mirror does not provide that field of view (due to an interior partition or any other reason), the Standard requires an outside rearview mirror. Each safety standard describes the types of vehicles and equipment systems to which it applies; copies of Standards N. 107, 111, 201, 205 and 208 are also enclosed for your information. The safety standards apply to new motor vehicles ad new items of motor vehicle equipment, and the responsibility for assuring compliance rests with the manufacturer. However, the Act also includes some restrictions on vehicle modifications after the first sale to a consumer. Under 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not "render inoperative" any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, modification of a vehicle by such a person must not render any safety feature inoperative. The owner or other user of a motor vehicle, however, may modify the vehicle without concern about possibly violating a Federal safety standard because the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to such users. State law should always be considered before modification, however, because it may limit the alteration of a vehicle by its owner or other users. You also ask whether the Act and our safety standards apply to various types of vehicles and ownerships. The Federal safety standards apply to all new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that are introduced into commerce in the United States. All the types of vehicles you mention, such as taxicabs, police cruisers, and utility vans, are within the Act's definition of "motor vehicle" (102(3)), so they are subject to all forth the types of vehicles to which it applies. There is no exception for the manufacture of vehicles for government or commercial use, Also, as discussed above, the user of a vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, may personally modify his or her vehicle without violating Federal law, but users should check State law. You also inquired, in cases whether the Act and safety standards do not apply, as to who might be liable for personal injury or property damage resulting from the use of interior partitions. As noted above, the Act applies to all new motor vehicles, so each new vehicle is required to comply with all applicable safety standards. However, the Act does not govern liability questions, regardless of whether a safety standard does or does not apply to a given vehicle or item of equipment. Liability issues are governed by State tort law; you may wish to consult with a local attorney to discuss the liability laws in your State. In addition, you asked how the pre-emption provision of the Act, (103(d)) would affect a State motor vehicle inspection law requiring safety belt retention for passenger cars, but not for commercial vehicles. That pre-emption provision prohibits any state safety standards for vehicles or items of vehicle equipment which are not identical to Federal safety standards covering the same aspect of performance. While that provision would not apply to the situation you describe -- since there is no Federal safety standard requiring the retention of safety belts -- the restrictions in the Act on subsequent vehicle modifications (108(a)(2)(A), discusses above) would apply. Since safety belts are required items of motor vehicle equipment under Standard No. 208, the statutory provision would prohibit certain commercial enterprises from removing those belts, whether from passenger cars or from commercial vehicles. Thus, no State law could legalize the removal by such businesses of federally required safety belts, since such a law would conflict with 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Of course, State law may require the retention of safety belts for any or all classes of motor vehicles. Finally, you asked whether prohibiting motor vehicles from interstate commerce would effectively avoid the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act. Such prohibition would not affect a manufacturer's obligation under the Act to certify the vehicle and assure compliance with all applicable safety standards. The Act is not limited to vehicles which are actually used in interstate commerce (i.e., those that cross State lines). Instead, it requires compliance with safety standards for all new vehicles and items of vehicle equipment which are manufactured, sold or introduced in interstate commerce (108(a)(1)(A)). In our view, that provision indicates Congress' intent to cover all new motor vehicles. As a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that any vehicle would never be in interstate commerce at some time during its lifetime. For example, the delivery of the vehicle from its place of manufacture to its original place of sale will generally involve movement in interstate commerce. Also, a manufacturer has no way of knowing where its vehicles may subsequently be used. In addition, whether or not the vehicles are actually used in interstate commerce, their subsequent use on public roads substantially affects interstate commerce and therefore is subject to Federal law. I hope these answers are helpful. We appreciate your interest in State safety belt use legislation, and again I apologize for the delay in responding. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Oesch of my office (202-426-2992). Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 86-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S.P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. B.K. O'Neil

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a product you manufacture. Your letter and the literature you enclosed describe your product as a modified acrylic tinted shield which fits over the front end of a passenger car. According to the pictures you enclosed with your letter, your shield fits over the headlights of some vehicles, in others it apparently only covers the front turn signals. I regret the delay in our response. As discussed below, your product could be affected by two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

The agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance and marking requirements for glazing materials used in a vehicle. Auxillary wind deflectors are among the items of glazing materials covered by the standard. The agency has applied the standard to the type of wind deflector that is used at a location necessary for driving visibility. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that wind deflectors do not obstruct or distort the vision of a driver. Thus, for example, the agency has said in a letter of October 2, 1985, to Mr. Rosario Costanzo that the standard would apply to a wind deflector designed to be mounted in the side window of a vehicle. The literature you enclosed shows that your product, which is a type of plastic shield, is not mounted in a location necessary for driving visibility and thus would not be covered by Standard No. 205.

Installation of your product in a new vehicle prior to its first sale would be affected by Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which sets, among other things, minimum candle power requirements for headlamps and turn signals. In addition, paragraph S4.1.3 of the standard prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Furthermore Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J580, Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, which is incorporated by reference in paragraph S4.1.1.36 and Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, prohibits styling features in front of headlamps when the lamps have been activated. Thus, S4.1.3, S4.1.1.36, and Tables I and II prohibit the use of fixed transparent headlamp covers as original equipment on motor vehicles. Part 567, Certification, of our regulations provides that a person that alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards. Thus, an alterer could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If a version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the alterer must certify that the vehicle lights will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Persons violating the certification requirement are subject to a civil fine of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a commercial business could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If the version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the business must assure that the vehicle lamps will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Commercial businesses that violate section 108(a)(2)(A) are subject to a civil penalty of $ 1,000 per violation.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Also, any modifications made by a vehicle owner would have to comply with applicable state law.

In addition, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which outlines those requirements.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ENC.

January 22, 1986

Department of Transportation

Attn: Erika Jones Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones:

I have been in contact with Mr. Ed Glassie of your department, and he suggested we contact you for clarification on our product.

AUTOBRA I manufactures a modified acrylic (Plexiglas DR(R)) auto bra, as per the enclosed literature.

I would like to find out if we are approved by D.O.T., or in fact, our product would need approval under your guidelines.

Please peruse our literature and samples, and advise me of your comments.

AUTOBRA I, INC.

B.K. O'Neill Vice President/Marketing

ENC.

P.S. Although there are presently four or five other manufacturers of auto bras in America right now, we are unfamiliar with their position as to D.O.T. compliance. The only difference between us is the type of plastic used.

(Graphics omitted)

Autobra shield has been designed to provide the following innovative features not available with most front end protection: STYLING Autobra shield's aerodynamic styling actually enhances your automobile's appearance.

MOUNTING Mounting Autobra shield is fast and secure without modification to your automobile.

ACCESS Autobra shield provides easy access to your hood or bonnet without total removal of the shield.

PROTECTION Autobra shield's solid acrylic construction provides maximum protection to your automobile from stones, bugs and other flying debris.

SAFETY Abrasion, mildew and damage to body finish of the covered area are eliminated because Autobra shield mounts away from the surface of the automobile.

MAINTENANCE Autobra shield wipes clean with soap and water providing easy maintenance.

Autobra shield's acrylic construction is resistant to the WEATHER elements; RESISTANCE consequently removal of the shield in inclement weather is virtually eliminated.

Autobra shield is available in light tint acrylic for Porsche 911, 930; BMW 318/325, 320; Toyota Celica, Tercel, Pick-Up; Fiero; Corvette; Mustang GT, and other select automobiles.

2177 Andrea Lane Ft. Myers, FL 33908 Florida (813) 482-5603 Toll Free 1-800-445-2886

Dealer inquiries welcomed

ID: 2793o

Mr. Ward W. Reeser
Project Engineer
Electrical Systems
Caterpillar Tractor Co.
100 N. E. Adams St.
Peoria, Illinois 61629

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 (FMVSS) 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 vehicle 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 manufactured 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 of 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-road 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 used 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 excepted 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 capabilities 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." However, 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 for 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 they 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 whether 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 would 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 equipment 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,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:8/8/88

ID: 9508

Mr. Carl Haywood
Operations Manager
Emergency Response Specialists
2251 Happy Top Road
Morris, Alabama 35116

Dear Mr. Haywood:

This responds to your letter of December 21, 1993, requesting information about seating requirements for emergency response units you are designing to respond to chemical spills. The response units are tractor trailer combinations which can be driven in and out of the cargo bay of C-130 Hercules aircraft which are used to transport the units to the site. You further describe the response units as follows:

Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. During air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation. This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases.

You requested information on the regulation of the seating in the response units. You have already contacted several Department of Transportation agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" under the definition, then the vehicle must comply will all applicable safety standards, including those related to seating and occupant restraint. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Applying this definition to the response units, NHTSA believes the response units are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether a vehicle which has both on-road and off-road uses is a motor vehicle, the agency looks at whether the vehicle uses public roads on a necessary and recurring basis. Applying this criteria to the response units, we believe that the response units have a primary function of highway transportation of personnel and equipment to the chemical spill site.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to determine the occupant seating requirements for the response units, it is necessary to determine how these vehicles are classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The tractor portion of the response unit has seating capacity for at least three passengers, but its primary use appears to be to draw the trailer. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." NHTSA believes the trailer portion of the response units would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to issue four safety standards relevant to occupant seating and restraint: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, all "occupant seats" in tractor portion of the response units must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers, therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, trucks are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position. As with Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Vehicle manufacturers have a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor.

Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if seat belts are voluntarily installed at the seats in the trailer portion of the response units, the seat belts would be required to be comply with Standard No. 209.

Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages installed in vehicles, where seat belts are required by Standard No. 208. Therefore, anchorages are required for the lap belts in the tractor, but are not required in the trailer.

Although all of the safety standards cited in this letter do not apply to each seating position in your proposed emergency response unit, the agency nevertheless encourages additional consideration and application of those performance requirements that are appropriate to a safe design.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#207#208#209#210 D:3/17/94

ID: nht76-1.43

DATE: 06/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Little Dude Trailer Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 26, 1976, letter concerning the certification label requirements in S5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

You have pointed out that the example shown in S5.3 presents rim, inflation, and maximum speed information after the Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings (GVWRs) as well as after the Gross Axle Weight Ratings (GAWRs). You have suggested that the text of S5.3 merely requires such information to appear after the GAWRs and urged such an interpretation. It appears that you have misunderstood the text.

In its present form, S5.3 requires each listed GVWR and GAWR to be followed by the information specified in paragraphs S5.3(a) through (d). Paragraph (a) is divided into subparagraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) in order to specify different items to follow GVWR and GAWR, respectively. Paragraphs (b) through (d) (which specify rim, inflation, and maximum speed information) are not subdivided because the same items are intended to follow GVWR and GAWR.

Several petitions for reconsideration of the standard have requested an amendment of S5.3 to eliminate the requirement that tire and rim information appear after the GVWR. Your suggestions on this matter, as well as the other suggestions in your letter, are being considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the preparation of its response to those petitions.

Please note that the effective dates of several of the standard's requirements, including that of S5.3, were delayed in a Federal Register notice published on May 6, 1976 (41 FR 18659; Docket No. 71-19, Notice 4). A copy of that notice is enclosed for your convenience.

YOURS TRULY,

little dude TRAILER COMPANY, INC.

March 26, 1976

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: Safety Standard 120

We have some questions and comments regarding the subject standard. On page 3480 (S5.3) you cover the requirements of the certification label. Part (a) (1) states, "After GVWR, the size designation of tires appropriate as a minimum for the GAWR's corresponding to that GVWR." Paragraph (a) (2) then goes into GAWR which is to be followed by (b), (c), and (d) as well as the appropriate tire size. On the surface, it appears that the GVWR is to be followed only by tire size; yet, your example shows it (GVWR) followed by everything, even though it is a duplication, that follows GAWR. Which is correct? If the example is correct, why should rim size, cold inflation, and maximum speed be repeated since they obviously must be the same?

Now, as to your discussion of the comments. On page 3478, 3rd column, 2nd paragraph, you state that the commentors pointing to the large number of possible combinations making the decal too large and confusing are not correct because they fail to fully understand the rule. We have no doubt that this is true on the comprehension part; but we cannot possibly see how rim designation, tire inflation, and maximum speed can be of any possible use to the consumer when the tires on the vehicle need not be listed. We hope that people do not apply this info in servicing, driving, or replacing a larger size tire than appears on the decal. The obvious question is, if these items don't have to apply to the tires on the vehicle, what good are they?

We feel that the comments about the size of and confusion on the decal definitely are pertinent to boat trailers even if not pertinent to cars and trucks. We are limited in size (3" to 5") for vertical decal expansion; consequently, we can only go horizontally to add the new information. Since some decals encompass as many as 4 GVWR's and GAWR's (8 on a tandem) we could very easily have one whole side of the trailer which would require no paint. What you failed to realize in your comment interpretation is that 99% of the changes in tires on boat trailers are made to change capacities; therefore, your answer that the law does not require the listing of more than one tire size is just not applicable to trailers. The changing of tires changes both the GVWR and the GAWR which adds all of your additional information in as much as fourfold for GVWR and up to eightfold on GAWR for a tandem. Some trailer manufacturers even go as far as 3 axles. The only alternative to this horrendous decal that no one could read or understand is a separate one for each capacity trailer. This alternative would be utter chaos for the Marine Industry and any other trailer shipped in a knocked down condition. When the same frame has up to 4 different running gear and load capacity combinations there is no assurance that our assembly people will be able to distinguish which decal goes with which running gear. Needless to say, the people putting trailers together for a dealer will never get them right or even care. The inventory duplication will be impossible for the manufacturer and his customers.

For once, why can't trailers be excepted from the laws governing cars and trucks? They are entirely different both in type and use. Between the lighting, decal, new warranty requirements, and cutting of tire capacities, we are fast protecting the consumer fully. Since all these costs must be passed on, the consumer will soon be unable to afford a trailer; hence, full protection because no one will have one.

No Marine Dealer or consumer that we have talked to knows or cares what GVWR and GAWR means. Furthermore, most trailer manufacturers buy their wheels and tires mounted. The rim information is to be on the wheel, capacity and inflation pressure are on the tires, and the over-the-road speed limit is 55 MPH. Aren't these items enough? They are certainly a safer guide than the decal information which you admit may or may not apply to the tires on the trailer. The only problem would be a disreputable tire or trailer manufacturer mounting a high capacity tire on a lower capacity rim. The trailer manufacturers that would do this aren't legal on lights and decal (some don't even have one) now; so, they won't be affected anyway, and the tire companies simply can't afford to run that kind of risk. This will be just another means of making reputable manufacturers less competitive with our already illegal "backyard" competitors. They never even paid their excise tax and certainly aren't worried about a decal.

Please advise:

1. Whether the example or the language is correct,

2. If we have misinterpreted anything,

3. If there is any way trailers, can be excluded from the new decal requirements.

Richard L. Rogers President

cc: CHUCK VERRILL; JEFF NAPIER

ID: nht80-3.4

DATE: 06/16/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association's May 27, 1980, "petition for extension of time in which to file a petition for reconsideration" and its petition for a stay of the effective date of this agency's rule on Information Gathering Powers, 49 CFR Part 510 (45 FR 29032; May 1, 1980). Both of the petitions are denied. If MVMA proceeds with its plans to file a petition requesting changes in Part 510, the petition will be treated as a petition for rulemaking and be given serious consideration.

Requirements regarding the timing of the submission of petitions for reconsideration and regarding the treatment of untimely reconsideration petitions are set forth in 49 CFR Part 553. Section 553.35(a) provides, in pertinent part:

The petition must be received not later than 30 days after publication of the rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER. Petitions filed after that time will be considered as petitions filed under Part 552 of this chapter.

Under this section, interested persons could have submitted a petition for reconsideration of Part 510 at any time between May 1, 1980, the date of publication, and June 2, 1980 (30 days plus an allowance for the weekend). The section does not provide for any extension of that period. Instead, it establishes the blanket rule that late petitions are to be treated as petitions for rulemaking.

The MVMA has not filed a timely petition for reconsideration. Your association had 32 days in which to file such a petition. It might have followed the almost unvarying practice of petitioners in this agency's rulemaking proceedings and submitted a petition setting forth its specific objections and arguments in full detail within the allotted time. Alternatively, it might have outlined each of its objections and the underlying arguments within the same period, leaving the details to be submitted subsequently in a supplementary submission. This alternative would have minimized MVMA's reported time difficulties. MVMA took neither course of action. Instead, it took the simple and unusual step of submitting a "petition" for the agency to set aside its regulations and accept a late petition for reconsideration. This approach is inconsistent with the purpose of Part 553 which is to ensure the administrative process moves forward in an orderly and timely fashion.

Although agencies can modify their procedural regulations in certain limited circumstances, the MVMA has not made an adequate showing to justify modification in this instance. In exceptional cases where the ends of justice are shown to so require, this agency can modify its procedural requirements. MVMA has not attempted to make any such showing. Your association has not adequately explained why it was unable to submit a petition within the available time. Similarly, it has not provided any basis for determining the likelihood of MVMA's success in having its petition granted.

With respect to your request for a stay of the effective date of Part 510, section 553.35(d) of 49 CFR provides that the filing of a petition for reconsideration does not stay the effective date of the final rule in question unless the agency provides otherwise. When a petitioner is able to make a clear and convincing showing under section 553.35(a) that compliance with the rule is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest, the agency could exercise its discretion to stay the effective date of the rule. Your petition for a stay of the effective date did not make any showing regarding any of these matters. Therefore, the agency will not take the unusual step of staying the effective date.

Again, as noted above, the denial of your petitions leaves open the opportunity to submit a petition for rulemaking detailing the desired changes in Part 510 and the arguments supporting those changes. NHTSA would fully consider such a petition under the procedures set forth in Part 552.

SINCERELY,

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION of the United States, Inc.

May 27, 1980

The Honorable Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Information Gathering Powers; 40 CFR Part 510, 45 Fed. Reg. 29032; Petition for Extension of Time in Which to File Petition for Reconsideration; Petition for Stay of Effective Date

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

By this letter the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. (MVMA) * petitions for an extension of 60 days -- to August 1, 1980 -- in which to petition for reconsideration of the above referenced rule and for a stay of its effective date from June 16, 1980 until 30 days following NHTSA's response to a petition for reconsideration.

* MVMA members are: American Motors Corporation, Checker Motors Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Freightliner Corporation, General Motors Corporation, International Harvester Company, PACCAR Inc, The Nolan Company, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Walter Motor Truck Company, and White Motor Corporation.

On May 1, 1980, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule governing the issuance and use of compulsory process, 49 CFR Part 510 (Docket No. 78-01; Notice 3; 45 Fed. Reg. 29032) ("Rule"). The Rule is quite extensive, covering the rights and duties of persons and entities from whom NHTSA seeks information by subpoena, general or special order, or written request in public or private hearings.

This rulemaking was initiated by a notice published December 27, 1977 (Notice 1, 42 Fed. Reg. 64628) which announced Part 510 and designated it to be an interim rule purportedly effective on that date. The same notice invited comments and indicated NHTSA's intention to promulgate a final rule in due course. MVMA and others filed extensive comments in response to NHTSA's invitation.

Notice 3, setting forth the final rule, would impose new and burdensome obligations on recipients of process from NHTSA. In MVMA's view, those obligations are not in each instance supported by statutory authority in the Safety Act, the Cost Savings Act or the Administrative Procedures Act.

MVMA and its member companies are studying Notice 3 with great care. The Association intends to address several aspects of the Rule by Petition for Reconsideration. In this particular instance, the 30 day period provided by 49 CFR Section 553.35(a) is not adequate for careful preparation of a petition.

NHTSA expended more than two years in preparation of a final rule. An extension of only 60 days in which to allow careful and deliberate preparation of comment on the final rule by MVMA is therefore entirely reasonable.

To MVMA's knowledge there is nothing in the experience of government or industry personnel since the enactment in 1966 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to suggest that a delay of a few weeks of the effective date of Part 510 will disrupt or impair any function of NHTSA.

For the foregoing reasons, we therefore petition that the effective date of final rule, Part 510, be postponed until 30 days following NHTSA's response to a petition for reconsideration filed by MVMA, and that time for filing a petition for reconsideration be extended to August 1, 1980.

Finally, we respectfully request that NHTSA inform MVMA promptly of the disposition of this petition.

William H. Crabtree Vice President and General Counsel

ID: nht81-3.10

DATE: 08/25/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 25 1981 NOA-30

Roger E. Maugh, Director Automotive Safety Office Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Maugh:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1981, to Hugh Oates of my staff requesting an interpretation concerning Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You ask whether you are correct in your belief that the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 of the standard apply to the seat belt anchorages used in your planned 1982-model Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2.

Paragraph S4.3.1 of the Standard specifies location requirements for the seat belt anchorages for Type 1 seat belt assemblies and the pelvic portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies in those installations in which the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame, and the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2 apply in installations in which the seat belt does bear upon the seat frame. On the 1982 Continental passenger cars, the buckle end of the seat belt assembly passes through a "console support structure" which is connected to the bottom of the seat frame. However, you contend that since the console support structure is not a structural component of the seat frame, the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame and, consequently, that paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies.

Your interpretation of paragraphs S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2 is correct. The phrase "bears upon the seat frame" as used in paragraph S4.3.1.2 refers to seat belt assemblies in which the seat belt presses or rests directly on the main structural frame of the seat. As illustrated in the photographs supplied in your letter, the seat belt in the 1982-model Continental passenger cars does not bear upon the structural seat frame. Rather, the belt rests on the console support frame which is not a necessary structural component of the main seat frame, but is merely attached to the seat frame at the bottom on the inboard side. Since the seat belt is located to the side of the seat frame and does not bear upon the structural seat frame itself, the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 apply to the location of the seat belt anchorages used in the 1982 Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of Paragraph S4.3.1.2.

We note that the console support frame could easily have been attached to the transmission tunnel rather than to the seat frame. In that case, the seat belt obviously would not bear upon the seat frame. However, with such a design, the frame supporting the belt would not move with the seat, and the driver could have problems reaching the belt and positioning it properly when the seat is in certain positions. The design of the passenger seat and seat belt assembly in the 1982 Continental is very desirable because attachment of the console support frame to the seat makes the seat belt very accessible in all seat positions. The fact that the console was attached to the seat frame for convenience purposes does not mean that the console is part of the seat frame within the meaning of S4.3.1.2.

The original intent of the location requirements of FMVSS 210 was to enhance belt performance with acceptable belt comfort and convenience. The specific requirements that are the subject of this interpretation were intended to ensure that belts would not develop excessive slack if a seat structural member bent or failed during a crash, and to reduce the likelihood that the lap belt would move into the abdominal area during a crash. We trust that Ford has adequately tested the configuration that is proposed here to ensure proper performance in a crash situation.

Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 31, 1981

Hugh F. Oates, Jr., Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oates:

This letter is to request concurrence in Ford Motor Company's view that compliance to section S4.3 "Location" of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 properly should be evaluated under subsection S4.3.1.1 for passenger seats of a new design being introduced in 1982 model Continental passenger cars. The applicability of subsection S4.3.1.1, rather than subsection S4.3.1.2, of Standard No. 210 was discussed between Ford personnel and you and Mr. R. Hitchcock of the Administration in Dearborn yesterday. At that time you were shown the new seat design and told why we believe it presents the possibility that a compliance tester might erroneously conclude that it should be evaluated against the criteria of subsection S4.3.1.2. If anchorage locations of these vehicles were to be evaluated under that subsection, rather than subsection S4.3.1.1, the location specifications could not be met.

The potential for misunderstanding arises, we believe, out of the fact that the bottom of the seat frame has connected to its inboard side a console support structure through which the inboard (buckle) end of the seat belt assembly passes. The console support structure is intended to provide a base for a "mini-console" that is to be installed on the inboard side of each half of a split bench seat. It is not a structural member of the seat frame and therefore, in our opinion, the fact that the inboard end of the belt would bear on the structure of the console support should not result in the anchorage locations being evaluated under the criteria of subsection S4.3.1.2 which apply only to installations in which the "...belt bears upon the seat frame...".

As may be seen from sketches provided by the Administration to contractors evaluating compliance to Standard No. 210 (Attachment A), the routing of the seat belts contemplated by the drafters of the standard as "bearing upon the seat frame" involve configurations wholly unlike that in question. Moreover, routing the inboard end of the seat belt assembly through a console support structure that moves with the seat frame has the salutary effect of helping to best position the belt and improving belt accessibility, no matter what position the seat is adjusted to. Ford could obviate all risk of misapplication of subsection S4.3.1.2 to the new seat design by physically modifying the console support so that the inboard end of the seat belt would not bear upon its structure, but only on the trim cover. For the reasons discussed above, we respectfully submit that we should not be required to do so.

Furnished for your reference are Attachment B which depicts the lower seat frame for the 1982 Continental, Attachment C, the console support and its cover, Attachment D, the untrimmed console support attached to the seat frame, and Attachment E, a finished seat assembly.

In order to avoid needless misunderstanding about the compliance of these seat belt assemblies to the anchorage location provisions of Standard No. 210 after production commences in mid-August, I should appreciate receiving the Administration's prompt confirmation of our analysis of the applicability of subsection S4.3.1.1 to the newly designed seat and console assembly, or your expression of any grounds on which the Administration may disagree with that analysis. Sincerely

Roger E. Maugh

Attachments

ID: nht80-4.16

DATE: 10/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Ogata Branch Manager Mazda Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office Detroit Branch 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Ogata:

Thank you for your July 24, 1980, letter concerning your efforts to improve defogging performance. We share your concern about providing optimum driving visibility and are pleased with your efforts to improve this safety feature.

Your letter requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 103, asking whether it is permissible to designate an intermediate blower fan speed (instead of the maximum speed) as the speed to be used when defrosting, if some caution or direction about the necessity for using that intermediate speed for defrosting purposes is provided in the Owner's Manual. The purpose of taking that step would be to cause the intermediate speed instead of the maximum blower speed to be used in testing the performance of the defrosting system under the standard. If this was permis- sible, you could increase the speed of the fan at the maximum position, thereby improving performance of the defogging function, while still being able to meet the performance requirements of the defrosting function at the intermediate speed (but not at the new maximum speed).

Paragraph S4.3 of the standard states that "the passenger car windshield defrosting and defogginq system shall be tested in accordance with the portions of paragraphs 4.1 through 4.4.7 of SAE Recommended Practice J902, August 1964, or SAE Recommended Practice J902a, March 1967, applicable to that system," with certain exceptions not applicable to your question.

Section 4.2(g) of SAE Recommended Practice J902 specifies as one of the testing conditions that the defroster system air be "On full. Blower on high." Similarly, section 4.2(g) of SAE Recommended Practice J902a specifies that the defroster system air be "On full. Blower on high speed." We therefore conclude that it would not be permissible under the standard as currently drafted to install a defrosting system which fails to meet the standard when the blower is set to its highest speed even if the system meets the standard at a lower blower speed and that lower blower speed is labeled as the maximum defrosting position. This conclusion would not be changed by the inclusion of directions in the Owner's Manual or words or symbols on the control panel.

If you are unable to resolve the problem in another way, i.e., improving the performance of the heating element, you may wish to petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for an amendment to FMVSS 103. It is our inclination, however, that a defrosting system which operated optimally at a lower blower speed would cause considerable consumer confusion. Drivers would normally expect to obtain both optimum defrosting performance and optimum defogging performance at the highest blower speed. Even if the system was clearly labeled to indicate that the blower speed should be set to medium for defrosting and high for defogging, many consumers do not know the difference between defrosting and defogging. We would also have to consider the amendment's effect on Standard 101, since there is only one symbol for the defrosting and defogging system. If you should decide to petition for an amendment to Standard 103, we would like to see these issues addressed.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 24, 1980 Our Ref. No.: DS-001

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 103

After having a meeting with Mr. S. Oesch and Mr. G. Parker, they have requested that I should submit my questions to the chief counsel. These questions pertain to the testing condition of FMVSS 103. Your response would be appreciated before the end of August.

QUESTION

When we conduct the test to measure the defrosting performance which is required by FMVSS 103, is it permissible to designate the switch position of the blower fan motor to other than the maximum blower speed under the condition that we provide some caution or direction in the Owner's Manual?

BACKGROUND

1. Our current defrosting and defogging systems fan switch has four positions shown below.

*Insert Diagram

Generally speaking, there are relations between the volume of hot air and temperature of the hot air described below.

POSITION VOLUME OF AIR TEMP. OF AIR

HI Maximum Lowest

M less than HI higher than HI position position

L Minimum Highest

In addition, the defrosting performance depends on the temperature of the air rather than the volume of the air and the defogging performance depends on the volume of the air rather than the temperature of the air.

Therefore, we gave the defrosting performance which complies with FMVSS 103 with the fan switch in the HI position for all current vehicles.

However, we have customer complaints from the market that the defogging performance is relatively poor in the HI position. So, we are now considering to give more volume in the HI position to resolve this complaint which is very important performance while driving the car to receive the best visibility.

However, unfortunately, we can not comply with the requirement if we increase the volume of the air because of the decrease of the air temperature which is mentioned above.

Now we are considering to designate the position of the fan switch in the Owner's Manual such as:

"Turn the FAN SWITCH on M position to get the maximum defrosting performance"

This means that we increase the air volume on both the M and HI positions and we can comply the requirement in the M position instead of the HI position.

2. There are three documents concerning the testing condition for FMVSS 103. They are FMVSS 103, SAE J902 and the Laboratory Test Procedure (TP-103-09). There are some differences between these documents regarding the fan position shown below:

FMVSS 103: There is no definition concerning the position

SAE J903, Sec.J.4.2.7: On Full. Blower on high speed.

TP-103-09, 4(g): ...in the manufacturer's designated positions for optimum defroster performance.

So, please interpret this matter on whether our designation of the fan switch position is acceptable.

In addition, please give us the information as to what kind of statement is acceptable in the Owner's Manual and whether we have to provide some words or symbols on the control panel from the point of FMVSS 101.

Thanking you in advance,

Sincerely yours,

M. Ogata Branch Manager

cc: Mr. G. Parker Office of Vehicle Standards Crash Avoidance Division