ID: nht95-7.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 12, 1995

FROM: Lewis H. Goldfarb -- Assistant General Counsel, Chrysler Corp.

TO: Kenneth Weinstein -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 210 Compliance - 1995 Cirrus

ATTACHMT: 12/21/95 letter from Kenneth N. Weinstein to Lewis H. Goldfarb

TEXT: As we discussed last week, I am attaching a memorandum setting forth Chrysler's legal position regarding the above compliance review. I am also submitting a summary report of a compliance test performed on December 8, 1995 in accordance with the procedures specified in FMVSS 210 and the published test protocol.

The test data confirm that the Cirrus satisfied the 3000 load requirement with a 20% margin at NHTSA's slower onset speed of 25 seconds. We believe this demonstrates full compliance with FMVSS 210.

As you know, the non-compliance found by OVSC staff in July was the result of a laboratory test that placed the pelvic body block 4 inches forward from the seat back. Our tests are conducted with the block positioned against the seat back. We advised OVSC staff in September that this alteration in the pelvic body block location significantly altered the stresses imposed on the rear seat anchorages as compared with the stresses imposed when the body block is positioned against the seat back. Since neither the procedures specified in the standard nor the published laboratory test protocol specify the location of the body block, our compliance test represents a valid demonstration of compliance with the standard and should be accepted by OVSC.

The attached memorandum provides a legal analysis in support of our position. In essence, it shows that NHTSA's interpretation of the standard as requiring that compliance be achieved regardless of the placement of the body block is contrary to the Safety Act mandate that standards "be stated in objective terms."

I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this further after your review.

Attachments (2)

Enclosures

SEAT BELT ANCHORAGE (Summary Report)

Test Information

Test Number: 21095137 Test Type: FMVSS 210 Dev Date: 12/8/95 Time: 13:40:50 Technician/Engineer G. D. Redd/H. Farrah Model Year & Body: 1995 JA Body Component Description: 3-Passenger Rear Bench Seat; VIN # 1B3EJ56C1TN100005 Comments: Weldnuts For O/B Anchors, Anchor Brkts Str. Rrwd., Trailing Arm Brkts.

Installed, Lap Belt Body Block Against Seatbacks, Lab Seat Belts Were Used. Units: English Sample Rate (Hz): 50 Sampling Duration (sec): 70

Required 10 sec. Actual Max. 10 sec. Peak Load Channel Name Load (lbs.) Load (lbs.) and % Achieved Lt. Shoulder, S/N-68869 3000.0 3626.2 + 20.9% 3632.1 Rt. Shoulder, S/N-68864 3000.0 3624.6 + 20.8% 3633.3 Lt. Lap. S/N-68860 3000.0 3624.4 + 20.8% 3632.4 Ct. Lap. S/N-68830 5000.0 6044.5 + 20.9% 6054.6 Rt. Lap. S/N-68820 3000.0 3626.6 + 20.9% 3632.5

(Charts omitted.)

MEMORANDUM

December 13, 1995

TO: Kenneth Weinstein, Esq.

FROM: Lewis Goldfarb, Esq.

RE: FMVSS 210 Compliance

This memorandum summarizes Chrysler's legal analysis in support of its position that the 1995 Cirrus LX vehicles comply with FMVSS 210.

A. The Chrysler Cirrus LX Complies with FMVSS 210.

In July 1995, Chrysler was notified by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that a 1995 Chrysler Cirrus LX apparently failed a compliance test measuring conformity with FMVSS 210 S4.2.2. The OVSC staff informed Chrysler personnel that the rear outboard driver-side anchorage bolt weld-nut did not sustain the 3,000 lb. load required by the referenced subsection of FMVSS 210.

After careful analysis by Chrysler, the company has confirmed its position that the 1995 Cirrus LX complies with FMVSS 210 when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in the standard and the published laboratory test protocol. Chrysler has also concluded that the NHTSA test result appearing to show noncompliance was attributable to the location of the pelvic body block during the NHTSA test. NHTSA's laboratory acknowledged that it placed the pelvic body block in the Cirrus test approximately 4 inches forward from the seat back. As the OVSC staff was advised by letter dated September 28, 1995, Chrysler has determined that this alteration in the pelvic body block location significantly altered the stresses imposed on the rear seat anchorages, as compared with the stresses imposed when the body block is positioned against the seat back.

Although Chrysler initially believed that the apparent noncompliance was attributable to differences between NHTSA's comparatively slow load application rate (approximately 25 seconds) and Chrysler's faster load application rate (approximately 10 seconds), Chrysler has now confirmed that the Cirrus meets the requirements of FMVSS 210 S4.2.2, even at the slower NHTSA load application rate, with the pelvic body block positioned against the seat back.

Chrysler has therefore determined that the only remaining issue is whether NHTSA's test can form the basis of a finding of noncompliance. In light of the obvious influence of the location of the pelvic body block -- a variable that is not specified in the Standard or in the accompanying test procedures -- Chrysler respectfully submits that NHTSA's test does not demonstrate a noncompliance with FMVSS 210, and that NHTSA cannot sustain a finding of noncompliance on the basis of an unspecified test procedure.

B. NHTSA Cannot Lawfully Base a Noncompliance Determination on an Unspecified Test Procedure.

NHTSA's statutory authority to promulgate standards is governed by the provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301 (Motor Vehicle Safety) (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). Chapter 301 provides that a motor vehicle safety standard "shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms." 49 U.S.C. @ 30111(a).

These statutory criteria for motor vehicle safety standards have been construed by the Federal courts to require NHTSA to specify objective criteria and test procedures for measuring compliance with each safety standard. In one of the first cases construing NHTSA's safety standard-setting authority, the Court found as follows:

"The importance of objectivity in safety standards cannot be overemphasized. The Act puts the burden upon the manufacturer to assure that his vehicles comply under pain of substantial penalties. In the absence of objectively defined performance requirements and test procedures, a manufacturer has no assurance that his own test results will be duplicated in tests conducted by the Agency. Accordingly, such objective criteria are absolutely necessary so that 'the question of whether there is compliance with the standard can be answered by objective measurement and without recourse to any subjective determination.'

Objective, in the context of this case, means that tests to determine compliance must be capable of producing identical results when test conditions are exactly duplicated, that they be decisively demonstrable by performing a rational test procedure, and that compliance is based upon the readings obtained from measuring instruments as opposed to the subjective opinions of human beings."

Chrysler Corporation v. Department of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659, 675-676 (6th Cir. 1972) (two footnotes omitted) (quotation in first paragraph is from the House Report accompanying enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, H.R. 1776, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. 1966 at p. 16).

The court went on to conclude that the provisions of FMVSS 208 under review at that time were not objective, because they permitted too much variability in the results of compliance tests conducted in literal compliance with the specified procedures.

Here, NHTSA has specified extensive test procedures for demonstrating compliance with FMVSS 210 within the text of the standard itself (S5. Test Procedures), and has supplemented those regulatory test procedures with a published laboratory test protocol, the latest version of which is TP-210-09. Neither the test procedures within the standard nor the accompanying test protocol makes any provision for locating the pelvic body block in the test vehicle for the anchorage loading compliance test. In the absence of a specification, Chrysler has consistently placed the body block against the seat back, which is the most natural and representative location for the body block. As far as Chrysler could ascertain from a review of prior NHTSA compliance tests, the agency has also customarily located the pelvic body block against the seat back during FMVSS 210 compliance tests.

On July 27, 1995, Chrysler representatives met with NHTSA compliance engineer Jeff Giuseppe and representatives of NHTSA's contractor, General Testing Laboratory. At that meeting, the Chrysler representatives were informed that NHTSA's contractor; GTL, moved the pelvic body block several inches forward of the seat back in order to prevent breaking the seat belt buckle during the load application test on the Cirrus.

This relocation of the pelvic body block away from the rear of the seat is not authorized by FMVSS 210 or its published test protocol. The rationale offered for the relocation - that the relocation was necessary to avoid breakage of the seat belt buckle during the compliance test -- is inconsistent with the 1990 amendments to FMVSS 210 and the implementing instruction in the published test procedure.

In 1990, NHTSA addressed the very issue of the potential for breakage of the buckle or webbing during the anchorage loading test, and decided to resolve the potential breakage problem by authorizing the use of cables, chains or high strength webbing to impose the load on anchorages during FMVSS 210 compliance testing, as long as the material used to apply the load to the anchorages duplicates the geometry of the original equipment webbing at that seating position at the initiation of the compliance test. Final Rule amending FMVSS 210, 55 Fed. Reg. 17970 at 17980 (April 30, 1990); Final Rule responding to Petitions for Reconsideration, 56 Fed. Reg. 63676 at 63677 (December 5, 1991). In the 1990 Final Rule, NHTSA emphasized that its decision was intended to assure that "compliance testing should not result in unrealistic loading for the anchorages."

In the published test protocol, NHTSA implemented this amendment to FMVSS 210 by directing laboratories to address potential buckle or webbing breakage by replacing seat belt webbing and/or buckles in the area of the body blocks with wire rope. (See Section 12, Compliance Test Execution.) At no time in the rulemaking or in the implementing test protocol has NHTSA ever suggested that the hardware breakage problem could or should be addressed by relocating the pelvic body block to some unspecified location away from the seat back of the test vehicle.

In any event, it does not matter whether the relocation of the body block is helpful to the agency in avoiding compliance test difficulties. The important point is that the contractor's relocation of the pelvic body block has adversely affected the outcome of the compliance test, by introducing a variable in the compliance test procedure that is not authorized by the NHTSA standard or its implementing published test protocol.

On its face, FMVSS 210 requires demonstration of anchorage strength under certain specified test conditions. Chrysler has demonstrated compliance with those requirements. It is only after NHTSA's contractor relocated the pelvic body block to a location not specified in the standard and not consistent with NHTSA's own prior laboratory test reports, that the laboratory was able to show an apparent noncompliance in the case of the Cirrus.

NHTSA is required to specify objective requirements in its safety standards, and to specify repeatable test procedures by which compliance can be demonstrated. Chrysler Corp. v. Department of Transportation, 472 F.2d at 676. In the Cirrus matter, the NHTSA laboratory's relocation of the pelvic body block was not authorized by the FMVSS 210 test procedure or the published test protocol. Thus, NHTSA is attempting to demonstrate noncompliance on the basis of an unspecified test variable, which it cannot do consistent with its obligation to specify repeatable test procedures. "Manufacturers are entitled to testing criteria that they can rely upon with certainty." Paccar, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 573 F.2d 632, 644 (9th Cir., 1978), cert. den. 439 U.S. 862 (1978).

Furthermore, NHTSA is not free to make changes in its compliance test procedures if those changes can affect the outcome of the compliance test, unless NHTSA provides adequate notice to the regulated industry. Absent such notice, NHTSA cannot retroactively interpret FMVSS 210 to require compliance with the anchorage strength requirements with a relocated pelvic body block. General Electric Company v. U.S. EPA, 15 F.3d 1324, 1333-1334 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (even if agency interpretation of a standard is reasonable and entitled to deference on a prospective basis, it cannot be enforced retroactively if the standard does not "fairly inform" the regulated industry of the agency's perspective).

C. Conclusion.

NHTSA cannot base a determination of noncompliance with FMVSS 210 on a variable test procedure that is not specified in the Standard. To hold otherwise would sanction a wholesale departure from the fundamental requirement in Chapter 301 for "objective" standards, compliance with which can be measured in accordance with repeatable, producible test procedures. Chrysler has demonstrated the Cirrus' compliance with FMVSS 210 in accordance with the regulatory test procedures and published test protocol. NHTSA's compliance investigation should be closed.

(Copy of page 64469 of the Federal Register (vol. 60, No. 241, 11-15-95) omitted here.)

ID: wheelchairlifts

Mr. Kenneth Conaway
Adaptive Mobility, Inc.
7050 Guion Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268





Dear Mr. Conaway:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding questions you have about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (FMVSS No. 206), which specifies various performance requirements for the door latches, locks and hinges of motor vehicles. In that letter, you posed four questions regarding the exception contained in FMVSS No. 206 for doors equipped with wheelchair lifts.

S4(c) of FMVSS No. 206 provides that "[c]omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily detached from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, and doors that are equipped with the wheelchair lifts and that are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visible signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver that is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard."

As with all of NHTSA's safety standards, FMVSS No. 206 only applies to new vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, after first retail sale, a manufacturer, dealer, or repair business may not remove or make inoperative safety features installed in compliance with the FMVSS No. 206 or other Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless NHTSA has issued an exemption from the "make inoperative" provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. ⁽¹⁾

First, you ask whether you may make the door locks and door retention components on a vehicle's side doors inoperable if 1) all the seating accommodations are removed except for a wheelchair lockdown and occupant restraint system that is installed directly across from the side doors and 2) a wheelchair lift with power door operators is installed in the side doors.

NHTSA addressed this and similar issues faced by vehicle modifiers in an amendment to 49 CFR Part 595 (66 Federal Register 12637, February 27, 2001). In amending Part 595, NHTSA struck a balance between maintaining an appropriate level of safety and increasing the mobility of the disabled. Accordingly, under the amended version of 49 CFR Part 595, a manufacturer, dealer, or repair business can now legally remove or make inoperative certain safety features installed in compliance with certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards when accommodating a vehicle for a disabled person. This exemption is limited to those portions of the safety standards specifically referenced in the regulation.

NHTSA did not include FMVSS No. 206 in the exemption because of the high level of fatalities associated with occupant ejection. Therefore, manufacturers, dealers, and repair businesses are generally prohibited from making door locks and retention components inoperative even when making accommodations for disabled persons. However, in the preamble to the final rule that amended 49 CFR Part 595, NHTSA also indicated its intention to preserve the wheelchair lift exception contained in FMVSS No. 206, which would allow manufacturers, dealers, and repair businesses to make door locks and door retention components inoperative for the specific and limited purpose of installing a wheelchair lift. Because compliance with FMVSS No. 206 is not required in the case of doors equipped with wheelchair lifts equipped with an alarm system, no exemption from the make inoperative provision is needed. Thus, you may make the door locks and door retention components inoperative as long as you install a wheelchair lift system that includes the alarm system specified in FMVSS No. 206. Although the standard does not require you to remove all designated seating positions adjacent to the lift, doing so may reduce the risk of ejection through the lift-equipped door and the possibility of injury from the lift in a crash.

Next, you would like to know whether you will qualify for the wheelchair lift exception in FMVSS No. 206 if you install either side or back doors that do not contain the original door locks and door retention components but do have a wheelchair lift and the alarm system specified in FMVSS No. 206 installed. The key to qualifying for the wheelchair-lift exception in FMVSS No. 206 is installing both the wheelchair lift and the specified alarm system. Any door for which you install both a wheelchair lift and the specified alarm system will be eligible for the exception contained in FMVSS No. 206 and need not comply with the door lock and door retention requirements of that standard. Accordingly, there is no requirement that you retain the original, complying latch systems for that door.

Third, you ask whether a wheelchair lift that has a folding platform qualifies for the exception in FMVSS No. 206 (assuming that it is installed in a door that has the alarm system specified in FMVSS No. 206). The exception in FMVSS No. 206 for wheelchair

lifts applies to all wheelchair lifts regardless of type, model, or brand. All wheelchair lifts, including those with folding platforms, will qualify for the exception in FMVSS No. 206 if they are installed on doors that have the specified alarm system installed. However, we note that a lift that does not block the affected door may not provide a vehicle occupant with protection from ejection. Such a risk is particularly great when the designated seating position adjacent to the affected door has not been removed or has been equipped with a wheelchair retention device.

Finally, you ask whether the date of manufacture for the vehicle has any bearing on the answers to the above three questions. The provision creating a wheelchair lift exception from the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 was implemented in 1985 (50 Federal Register 12029, March 27, 1985). Any vehicle manufactured after that date that is equipped with a wheelchair lift meeting the requirements of S4(c) need not meet the requirements of the standard with respect to the door that is equipped with the lift. Likewise, we do not consider modifications on vehicles that were manufactured prior to the effective date of an amended standard to constitute a violation of the make inoperative provision as long as those modifications are consistent with the new requirements. Thus, this type of modification may be made to any vehicle subject to the terms of the exception in FMVSS No. 206.

I hope this answers your questions. If you have any further questions please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at the address provided above or at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.4/1/02





---

¹ 49 U.S.C. 30122 states in pertinent part that a "motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard."

ID: 002293cmc

Mr. Pierre Villeneuve
Girardin Minibus
Route Transcanadienne
Drummondville, Quebec J2B 6V4

Dear Mr. Villeneuve,

This is in response to your fax of November 4, 2002, requesting information on the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 207, Seating systems, and 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, to commercial buses. In your letter you ask if both FMVSS Nos. 207 and 210 apply to passenger seats on commercial buses. The answer to your question is that FMVSS No. 210 is applicable to passenger seats of all buses regardless of whether they are used for commercial purposes, as long as the vehicles gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is 10,000 pounds or less. FMVSS No. 207 does not apply to passenger seats on buses that are designed for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion regardless of weight.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards and is certified as being in compliance.

FMVSS No. 207 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. (See S2.) However, S4.2 of FMVSS No. 207 establishes general performance requirements, stating that:

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, in newtons ... (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, passenger seats on buses are excluded from the general performance requirements for seats under FMVSS No. 207, and only the drivers seat of a bus must meet the general performance seat requirements under this regulation. FMVSS No. 207 also sets out requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats or seat backs. (See S4.3.) But again, passenger seats in buses are excluded from this requirement.

FMVSS No. 210 also applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. (See S2.) FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, establishes which designated seating positions on buses require seat belt assemblies and FMVSS No. 210 establishes the standards for the belt anchorages those assemblies are required to meet. In determining whether seat belt anchorages need to be installed, S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 210 references FMVSS No. 208 and states:

Seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position for which a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required by Standard No. 208[.] Seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position for which a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required by Standard No. 208[.]

S4.4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 208, states in pertinent part that:

[E]ach bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except a school bus, shall be equipped with an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's designated seating position and at the front and every rear forward-facing outboard designated seating position, and with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other designated seating positions.

For buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, seat belt assembly requirements only apply to the drivers designated seating position. (See FMVSS No. 208 S4.4.3.1.) Accordingly, for these vehicles the passenger seats need not meet the requirements of either FMVSS No. 207 or FMVSS No. 210.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.1/16/03

ID: nht90-3.98

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1990

FROM: Roger C. Fairchild -- Esq., Shutler and Low

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-26-90 from P.J. Rice to R.C. Fairchild (A36; Std. 109; Std. 110; Std. 119; Std. 120)

TEXT:

Our firm advises a number of motor vehicle industry clients regarding their obligations under various Federal statutes and regulations. On behalf of a client, we request your opinion regarding the proper interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 110 and 120 (49 C.F.R. 571.110 and 571.120), as they relate to certain recommendations for tire selection and pressure/load determinations contained in publications of the Tire and Rim Association ("TRA").

Background

The TRA Year Book is one of the tire industry standardization publications that are listed in section 4.4.1(b) of FMVSS 109 and in section 5.1(b) of FMVSS 119. Under section 4.2.1(c) of FMVSS 109 and section 6.6 of FMVSS 119, tires must have maximum load ratings (molded on the sidewall in accordance with section 4.3(c) of FMVSS 109 and section 6.5(d) of FMVSS 119) that are not less than the lowest of any specified values printed in the listed publications, for tires of that size designation. Under section 4.2.1 of FMVSS 110, the vehicle maximum load on a tire may not be greater than the maximum load rating on the tire sidewall. In addition, section 4.3.1(c) of FMVSS 110 provides that, if a tire pressure other than the maximum pressure is specified on a passenger car tire placard, the vehicle loading condition for that pressure must be specified, and that pressure must be one that will support the vehicle load on the applicable tire, as specified in the listed publications or in a separate submittal by the tire manufacturer. Moreover, it is our understanding that NHTSA has interpreted FMVSS 120 to require that, for vehicles other than passenger cars, the vehicle load on each tire (at the recommended inflation pressure) must not exceed the tire's load rating at that pressure, as specified in the listed publications.

Thus, NHTSA generally requires that the tire selection process and tire information labels must reflect pressure/load relationships that are determined by reference to publications such as the TRA Year Book. However, NHTSA standards do not specify the exact part of each of these publications that is to be used in determining compliance with NHTSA standards. In fact, the publications include some "advisory" requirements that do not appear to be used in determining compliance with the FMVSS.

Examples of TRA criteria that are not clearly referred to in NHTSA standards are those criteria relating to vehicle speed capability.

Although FMVSS 109 and 119 include tire high speed tests, we understand that, in general, no separate provision is made in the FMVSS to account for vehicle high speed capability.

Questions

We request that you inform us as to whether the following three TRA criteria are used in determining compliance with FMVSS:

1. Vehicle Load Adjustment for Speed (Passenger Cars)

The 1990 edition of the TRA Year Book provides that "for applications above 210 km/h (130 mph), both vehicle normal load and vehicle maximum load shall be multiplied by a factor" that is based on the vehicle's maximum speed capability (see Enclosure 1). The Year Book goes on to state that "the resultant vehicle normal load must not exceed 88 percent of the tire maximum load and the resultant vehicle maximum load must not exceed the tire maximum load. In addition, the resultant vehicle maximum load as determined above must not exceed the tire load corresponding to the inflation pressure specified by the vehicle manufacturer."

It is our understanding that the adjustment factor described above is not used in determining compliance with FMVSS 110 or 120. As with the TRA provisions, section 4.2 of FMVSS 110 requires that the vehicle normal load on a tire must not exceed 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating and the vehicle maximum load on a tire must not exceed the maximum load rating (as marked on the tire sidewall). However, unlike the TRA provisions, the terms "vehicle normal load" and "vehicle maximum load" are defined in section 3 of FMVSS 110 without reference to the speed capability of the vehicle. No explicit reference to the above described adjustment factor appears anywhere in the Federal standards. Therefore, we conclude that the vehicle speed adjustment factor is not applicable under the Federal standards.

2. Vehicle Speed Adjustment for Inflation Pressure (Passenger Cars)

The TRA Year Book also requires that the "speed category of the tire must match or exceed the theoretical maximum speed of the vehicle." The theoretical maximum speed of the vehicle is defined by TRA as the actual maximum speed, as adjusted for tire inflation pressure using another factor specified by TRA. (See Enclosure 2.) TRA also recommends minimum inflation pressures for vehicles of high maximum speed capability. We are aware of no reference anywhere in NHTSA regulations to tire speed categories. Therefore, it is our understanding that the TRA provisions set forth in Enclosure 2 are not used in determining compliance with Federal safety standards.

3. Load Limits at Various Speeds for Diagonal and Radial Ply Truck Tires

TRA also provides for adjustments in recommended tire inflation pressure and "service load" for tires used on trucks and buses, depending on the maximum speed capability of the vehicle (see Enclosure 3).

FMVSS 120 does not explicitly define the required tire pressure/load relationships for trucks and buses. However, section 5.1.2 of that standard provides that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires

fitted to an axle must not be less than the applicable GAWR. The maximum load ratings of truck tires are determined under section 6.6 of FMVSS 119 without reference to the vehicle application. The only explicit reference in FMVSS 120 to vehicle maximum speed capability is an exclusion from the requirements of section 5.1.2 for vehicles whose maximum speed attainable in 2 miles is 50 mph or less. Thus, we do not see a basis for using the TRA standard set forth in Enclosure 3 to determine compliance with Federal standards.

Conclusion

In our opinion, the TRA Standards described above should not be used in determining compliance with Federal safety standards. In general, using such private standards would have the effect of delegating to several distinct organizations the power to amend Federal standards in ways that are potentially inconsistent. Moreover, TRA standards are typically made effective on publication, so no advance lead-time would be provided to vehicle manufacturers with respect to new TRA standards. (If NHTSA determines that the above mentioned "advisory" requirements of the TRA standards must be used in determining compliance with the FMVSS, please inform us how NHTSA would deal with this lead-time concern, consistent with section 103(e) of the Safety Act.)

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 818-1320 (local number).

Enclosures

Selection of Tires for Passenger Cars and Station Wagons (Source: The Tire and Rim Association 1990 Year Book) (text omitted.)

Vehicle Speed Adjustment (for inflation pressure) (text omitted).

Load Limits at Various Speeds for Diagonal and Radial Ply Truck Tires Used on Improved Surfaces (text omitted).

ID: 22837ogm

Mr. James Arnold
MAC Trailer Manufacturing Inc.
14599 Commerce Street
Alliance, OH 44601

Dear Mr. Arnold:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You indicate that your company manufactures truck trailers for highway use. Your letter further indicates that a number of your dealers have asked that your company produce trailers equipped with a certain item of equipment to satisfy the antilock brake systems (ABS) requirements of FMVSS No. 121. The device in question, marketed by its manufacturer Air Brake Systems, Inc. (ABS, Inc.) as the MSQR-5000, is described in promotional material from ABS, Inc. as a "Differential Pressure Regulator Quick Release Valve." You have also attached a document from ABS, Inc. that contains a number of representations relating to the ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121 and concludes as follows:

Air Brake Systems Inc. hereby certifies that the MSQR-5000^TM anti-lock brake system fully satisfies the definition of anti-lock brakes as required by 49 CFR 571.121 and exceeds the performance requirements of 49 CFR 30113(b)(3)(B)(ii). (Warning light excluded thereto.) ABS Brakes, Inc. Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858 USA

Based on the aforementioned materials, you ask if a trailer equipped with the MSQR-5000 "system" installed as means of meeting ABS requirements would meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 121.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. With certain exceptions related to special configurations, FMVSS No. 121 applies to vehicles - trucks, buses, and trailers - with air brake systems.

As an equipment manufacturer, ABS, Inc., is not required to certify compliance of its product to FMVSS No. 121, but any vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that its vehicle complies with all the requirements of FMVSS No. 121. It is not uncommon for a vehicle manufacturer to request information from an equipment manufacturer. However, the responsibility for compliance with FMVSS No. 121 and for certification of compliance rests with the vehicle manufacturer. As we have stated before, it is our opinion that reliance by a vehicle manufacturer solely on "certification of compliance" provided by an equipment manufacturer, without more, is not legally sufficient. Moreover, should it be determined that a vehicle does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or contains a defect, the recall and remedy obligations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would fall upon the vehicle manufacturer and not the equipment manufacturer which supplied particular equipment. See 49 CFR Part 579. Possible liability in tort under state law could fall upon both the vehicle manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer. A private attorney could advise you about this possibility.

The following represents our opinion based on the facts presented in your letter, the attachments provided with your letter and agency review of other data obtained from ABS, Inc.

In marketing and selling the MSQR-5000, ABS, Inc., has represented, in advertisements, promotional materials and in direct contact with potential customers, that the MSQR-5000 is an ABS whose installation in a vehicle will result in the vehicle meeting the ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121). The configuration of the MSQR-5000 and the fact that the device has no electrical or electronic components has apparently led some potential customers of ABS, Inc. to ask NHTSA if the MSQR-5000 is a device which, if installed on a vehicle, would allow that vehicle to meet the ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121. As discussed below, based on a review of the promotional materials describing the device and the principles involved in its operation, it is NHTSA's view that the installation of the MSQR-5000 alone would not allow a vehicle to meet FMVSS No. 121's ABS requirement.

Among other things, FMVSS No. 121 requires that trailers (S5.2.3) and trucks (S5.1.6) be equipped with an ABS. For the purposes of FMVSS No. 121, ABS is defined in S4 of the standard as follows:

Antilock brake system or ABS means a portion of a service brake system that automatically controls the degree of rotational wheel slip during braking by:

(1) Sensing the rate of angular rotation of the wheels;

(2) Transmitting signals regarding the rate of wheel angular rotation to one or more controlling devices which interpret those signals and generate responsive controlling output signals; and

(3) Transmitting those controlling signals to one or more modulators which adjust brake actuating forces in response to those signals.

In addition, in order to ensure that vehicle owners and operators have knowledge of the status of an ABS system installed on a truck, truck tractor or trailer, FMVSS No. 121 also contains extensive and detailed requirements for malfunction indicators that illuminate a light when the ABS is not working properly. These requirements, found in S5.1.6.2, S5.1.6.3 and S5.2.3.2, specify that a truck, truck tractor or trailer must have an electrical circuit that is capable of signaling a malfunction in the vehicle's antilock brake system, and must have the means for connection of this antilock brake system malfunction signal circuit to a trailer or towing vehicle. Such a signal must be present whenever there is a malfunction that affects the generation or transmission of response or control signals in the antilock brake system. The signal must remain present as long as the malfunction exists, whenever power is supplied to the antilock brake system, and each message about the existence of such a malfunction must be stored in the antilock brake system whenever power is no longer supplied to it.

The ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121 were incorporated into the standard by a final rule published in the Federal Register on March 10, 1995 (60 FR 13216). In the preamble to that final rule, the agency noted that 10 to 15 percent of heavy combination vehicle crashes involved braking induced instability or loss of control. These crashes resulted in significant property damage, injury and loss of life. In order to address the safety consequences of braking related instability, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 121 to require effective antilock braking systems.

One of the primary considerations in developing the new requirements was what, at a minimum, an antilock braking system must do in order to prevent or reduce crashes. The agency determined that due to the wide range of surfaces a vehicle may encounter in normal use, an effective ABS system must have the ability to determine if and when a braked wheel is momentarily locked as it passes from high to low traction conditions. Because of such varying conditions, the agency determined that any effective ABS must be a "closed loop" system - i.e., a system that continuously monitors the rate of wheel rotation, adjusts that wheel rotation when needed and reacts to ongoing changes in rotation caused by the operation of the system, changing road surfaces or both (60 FR 13217). Similarly, NHTSA determined that warning light requirements that established a minimum level of safety were also important for reducing crashes, deaths and injuries. The warning light requirements would inform operators of an ABS malfunction and both facilitate and encourage repairs of faulty ABS systems (60 FR 13244).

The MSQR-5000 appears to lack one or more features that an ABS must have to meet FMVSS No. 121. Based on literature provided to us, the MSQR-5000 does not seem to have any means of automatically controlling wheel slip during braking by sensing, analyzing, and modulating the rate of angular rotation of a wheel or wheels. The components identified and described in the MSQR-5000 promotional materials do not have a means for measuring wheel rotation, recognizing wheel lockup, controlling or modulating brake pressure to a locked wheel, or preventing one or more wheels from locking if a driver applies maximum brake pressure to the system. Therefore, standing alone, the MSQR-5000 does not satisfy the definition of ABS as set forth in FMVSS No. 121.

In addition, the MSQR-5000 also appears to lack any provision for illuminating a warning light providing notification of an ABS malfunction. In fact, the materials distributed by ABS, Inc., including the "Certification of Compliance, "indicate that the company believes that the ABS warning light requirements of FMVSS No. 121 are "excluded"by virtue of a decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit in the case of Washington v. Department of Transportation, 84 F.3d 1222 (1996).

The Washington case involved a challenge to the validity of FMVSS No. 121's ABS requirements on two grounds - that the requirements conflicted with existing Federal Highway Administration regulations governing motor carriers and that NHTSA exceeded its authority in issuing the rule by establishing that an ABS must have certain characteristics. Mr. Washington argued that the requirement that an ABS have certain minimum characteristics unduly restrained design choices. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of NHTSA in regard to both of these claims. Moreover, while the Court's decision discussed the fact that manufacturers may apply for an exemption from an existing standard or petition the agency to modify an existing standard, the decision did not provide for any such exemption or "exclusion"for ABS, Inc., or any other manufacturer. The claims now made by ABS, Inc. - that the ABS warning light requirements of FMVSS No. 121 were "excluded,"or that ABS, Inc. is exempt from meeting this requirement - are incorrect. Similarly, any assertion that the Court of Appeals found that FMVSS No. 121 unduly restricted design choices is in error.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref.121
d.6/4/01

Addendum: 09/26/01

At the request of Air Brake Systems, Inc. ("ABS, Inc."), the opinions stated in the foregoing letter are under further consideration by the agency, based, in part, on additional materials that ABS, Inc. has provided, or may submit, to the agency in the near future. The agency is now undertaking further review, after which NHTSA will, if appropriate, issue a revised interpretation to MAC Trailer.

ID: ELECBIKEZTV

Mr. Adam Englund
Electric Bicycle Company, LLC
3601 Empire Avenue
Burbank, CA 91505

Dear Mr. Englund:

This responds to an undated letter of yours which we received on October 2, 1995. Initially, you requested interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) Nos. 108, 116, 119, and 122 as they apply to the "EV Warrior," "an electric/human-powered bicycle" which your company intends to manufacture. Subsequently, on December 12, 1995, you informed Taylor Vinson of this Office by FAX that your company (1) had resolved its problems that would have raised questions with respect to Standards Nos. 108 and 119, and (2) only needed answers to its questions concerning Standards Nos. 116 and 122.

The EV Warrior comes within the definition of "motorcycle" for purposes of the FMVSSs. Occasionally, the FMVSSs prescribe lesser requirements for a subset of motorcycles with 5 or less horsepower, known as motor driven cycles. Although electric motors are not rated by horsepower, the size of the EV Warrior is consistent with that of a motor driven cycle. Accordingly, we believe that it is appropriate to consider it as such for purposes of the FMVSS.

The following issues remain:

1. FMVSS No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids.

You stated that the EV Warrior is equipped with a hydraulic disc brake that uses a green colored biodegradable synthetic oil, known as "Shell Naturelle HF-E 15." You further stated that this oil "is not in contact with any elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR)."

Your letter discusses the definitions for "brake fluid" and "hydraulic system mineral oil," argues that your fluid is neither, and concludes that there are no requirements under FMVSS No. 116 for the hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil used in the EV Warrior's hydraulic brake system.

Although we agree that the synthetic oil does not fall within either of those definitions in FMVSS No. 116, the implication of this fact is not that the use of the synthetic oil is unregulated by the standard. FMVSS No. 116 specifies the types of fluids that may be used in the braking systems of motor vehicles. Section S3, Application, states that FMVSS No. 116 "applies to all fluid for use in hydraulic brake systems of motor vehicles." (emphasis added). Section S5.3 requires each motor vehicle that has a hydraulic brake system to "be equipped with fluid that has been manufactured and packaged in conformity with the requirements of this standard." Since the synthetic oil cannot be manufactured in conformity with the standard, the EV Warrior would not comply with FMVSS No. 116 if its brake system used the oil you have described.

You informed this office that fluid conforming to FMVSS No. 116 may be incompatible with the seals currently specified for use in the EV Warrior's brake system. However, our technical analysis suggests that it might be relatively simple and inexpensive to fabricate seals from materials that are compatible with conforming brake fluids, thus allowing the EV Warrior to be equipped with fluid conforming to FMVSS No. 116 and to comply with S5.3 of the standard.

2. FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems.

You stated that the EV Warrior will have a hydraulic brake system with no master cylinder reservoirs. You contend that because the hydraulic brake system will not have master cylinders, the motorcycle need not have master cylinder reservoirs. You ask whether the EV Warrior therefore will meet FMVSS No. 122. In the alternative, you ask for an interpretation stating that FMVSS No. 122 applies to an open system that requires a reservoir, but not to a closed, actuator system (in which a reservoir serves no purpose).

FMVSS No. 122 (unlike FMVSS No. 105) does not define a motorcycle hydraulic service brake system, and does not specify design requirements for such. Paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 122, specifying requirements for motorcycle hydraulic service brake systems, states that "[e]ach motorcycle equipped with a hydraulic brake system shall have the equipment specified in S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2." S5.1.2.1 specifies that each master cylinder shall have a separate reservoir and S5.1.2.2 specifies reservoir labeling. S5.1.2.1 may be read as assuming, but not requiring, that a motorcycle hydraulic service brake system will have master cylinders. Therefore, we agree that because your brake system does not have master cylinders, there is no requirement for reservoirs or for reservoir labeling.

Nevertheless, because we understand this brake system can be opened for the purpose of adding or changing the fluid used in it, and because fluid used in the EV Warrior's brake system may be susceptible to contamination, we urge you to inform the purchaser, by a label on the machine or warning in the operator's manual, that care is required when the filler cap is removed.

If you have any further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108#116##119#120#122 d:1/19/96

Your requests for confidentiality, as modified after discussions with this office, were granted on October 27, 1995, by the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law.

ID: nht89-3.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 7, 1989

FROM: S. Kadoya -- Manager, Safety and Technology, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; George Parker -- Assoc. Administrator-Enforcement, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation of 49 CFR Parts 571 and 581 with respect to active suspension systems.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-2-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Kadoya (A36; Std. 108; Std. 111; Std. 209; Std. 208; Std. 212; Std. 219; Std. 301; Part 581

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request NHTSA's interpretation of the requirements and test conditions of the following Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS); as they apply to active suspension systems:

S108, "Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment" S111, "Rearview mirrors" S204, "Steering control rearward displacement" S208, "Occupant crash protection" S212, "Windshield mounting" S219, "Windshield zone intrusion of S301, "Fuel system integrity"

In addition, Mazda also requests an interpretation of the requirements of Part 581, "Bumper Standard," as they apply to active suspensions. Because this interpretation request covers several safety standards and because each standard may involve a parti cular person that is assigned to it, Mazda's questions regarding these individual standards have been presented in separate appendices to this letter. Each appendix addresses only one safety standard. Mazda hopes that this method will facilitate distri bution of this document to the appropriate NHTSA personnel. Mazda is writing to you both because the questions raised concern not only the interpretation of a given standard but enforcement issues as well.

Mazda is currently developing an active suspension system for possible use in future vehicle programs. The benefits of such a system have been, by now, well documented and, therefore, will not be repeated here. More importantly, Mazda is now working to establish a compliance testing protocol to the requirements of 49 CFR Parts 571 and 581. In attempting to establish this testing protocol numerous questions have arisen regarding the applicability, test conditions, and testing logistics of these Parts as they pertain to active suspension systems. In formulating this request, Mazda has reviewed past NHTSA interpretations for similar types of suspension systems. This request covers those questions that Mazda feels were not answered by previous interpr etations.

In order to obtain a meaningful interpretation of the requirements of the above listed safety standards, Mazda would like to stipulate an assumed active suspension system. For the purposes of this interpretation request the assumed system is actuated by hydraulic fluid or compressed air. An

electronic controller with feedback control regulates vehicle attitude to programmed design positions based on such inputs as:

1. vehicle speed 2. lateral acceleration 3. steering angle, and 4. suspension height

The primary sensed parameter for feedback control is suspension height. This system maintains a level vehicle body attitude, controls body pitch and roll, and effects a more aerodynamic vehicle profile at highway speeds. At vehicle speeds in excess of " Z" mph, where Z is greater than 35 mph, the suspension height is lowered by "x" mm. Control pressure is developed by a hydraulic pump or air compressor driven off the engine. Consequently, the active suspension system is only operational when the vehicl e's engine is operating. If the engine/vehicle should remain unused for a period of, say, days pressure in the control system will fall such that the suspension height may be lowered by as much as "y" mm, where "y" is greater than "x". The suspension h eight is returned to its nominal or design position for vehicle operation after such an extended period of inoperation almost immediately after starting the vehicle's engine. For convenience, let's call this assumed system, the ACS system.

Mazda is concerned about the protocol of compliance testing of vehicles equipped with an active suspension system. These concerns arise because many of the safety standards, primarily those listed above, do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during compliance testing. This has not been necessary with conventional suspension systems, and it may not be necessary with vehicles equipped with active suspension systems, if it is assumed for the purposes of compliance testing that the vehicle 's ignition switch is in the "on" position, i.e., the engine is operational and, thus, so is the system's hydraulic pump/air compressor. If this is indeed the case, the system is able to determine automatically a specified suspension height given a vehi cle speed and vehicle loading condition; just as a conventional shock absorber/spring system would determine mechanically a suspension height for these same given conditions. Unfortunately, the above listed standards do not specify explicitly the status of the vehicle's ignition switch. In most instances it is obvious that the ignition switch must be "on" for the vehicle to be able to fulfill its intended purpose. However, Mazda seeks a definitive interpretation of the status of a vehicle's ignition s witch, as well as the applicability of these standards as a function of the status of the ignition switch.

Furthermore, Mazda is concerned about the logistics of compliance testing. This is because the assumed active suspension system derives its power from the vehicle's engine when it is running, i.e., the system's ability to maintain and regulate suspension height is only possible during engine operation. For reasons of practicality and safety, a vehicle's engine is not actually operational during compliance testing. Therefore, Mazda is seeking from NHTSA guidelines by which Mazda may be able to establis h a means to maintain the intended suspension height for compliance testing purposes in the absence of engine operation. Mazda is reluctant to establish these means without such guidelines from NHTSA because it is

concerned that NHTSA may consider tests conducted in this manner to be in violation of the requirements of 49 CFR Parts 571 and 581 and, thus, invalid.

Mazda sincerely appreciates the opportunity for NHTSA's review of the issues raised in this letter and the attached appendices. Furthermore, Mazda would appreciate any further insight that NHTSA may wish to offer regarding these issues. NHTSA may also wish to consider how NCAP test procedures may be affected by the issues raised. Should NHTSA require further information or clarification of the issues raised in this letter and its attachments, please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Mr. R. Strassburger of my staff.

FMVSS No. 108, "Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment"

Prologue: NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108; at the request of a confidential applicant and dated February 12, 1985, with respect to active suspension equipped vehicles. This interpretation stated that th e requirements of FMVSS No. 108 must be meet,"...at any time in which...",lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment are to be,"...operated for its intended purpose." Consequently, headlamps, tailamps, stoplamps, the license plate lamp, and side marker lamps, must comply with the location requirements of FMVSS No. 108 when ever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" position. Conversely, reflex reflectors, and turn signal lamps that also function as hazard warning signal flashers must comply wi th the location requirements when the vehicle's ignition is in either the "on" or "off" position. However, it is Mazda's interpretation that hazard warning flashers are not intended to be operational for a period of days, but rather for a period of hour s, at maximum, only.

Question A1: Is Mazda's understanding of the subject NHTSA interpretation accurate?

Question A2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers correct?

APPENDIX B: FMVSS No. 111, "Rearview mirrors"

Prologue: Section S5 of this standard describes the requirements for passenger cars. Section S5.1.1 establishes the requirements for,"Field of view." The location of the driver's eye reference points are established pursuant to the guidelines of FMVSS No. 104," Windshield wiping and washing systems." Safety standard no. 104 references SAE recommended practice J941," Motor vehicle driver's eye range,"; which describes a procedure for locating a locus of points representative of the eye locations for 9 0th, 95th, and 99th percentile distributions of a population mix of primarily US licensed drivers. Because the location requirements of J941 are made referenced to points within the vehicles cabin, it is not anticipated that the ACS system will perturb or otherwise interfere with these measurements. However, S5.1.1 requires further that the field of view,"...with an included horizontal angle measured from the projected eye point of at least 20 degrees, and sufficient vertical angle to provide a view o f a level road surface extending to the horizon

beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle..." As was stated in the cover letter to this appendix, the ACS system suspension height may fall by "y" mm if the vehicle is not used for a period of days. In a previous NHTSA i nterpretation of FMVSS No. 108, at the request of a confidential applicant and dated February 12, 1985, NHTSA stated that,"...the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose." Using this "intended purpose" argument Mazda's interpretation of FMVSS No. 111 is that the requirements of this standard are to be met when the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" position as rearview mirrors are not intended to be used when the vehicle's engine is not operating.

Question Bl: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements FMVSS No. 111 with respect to the state of the vehicle's ignition switch correct?

Question B2: For the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, what means of maintaining the intended suspension height for a given vehicle speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA?

Appendix C: FMVSS No. 204, "Steering control rearward displacement"

Prologue: Section S4 of this standard specifies the compliance parameter for this standard. Section S5 specifies the testing conditions to determine compliance with this standard. Section S5.1 specifies that the vehicle be loaded to its unloaded vehicl e weight. Section S5.5 specifies that the vehicles fuel tank be filled with Stoddard solvent to any capacity between 90 and 95 percent of the total capacity of the tank. Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of this standard is that they are to be met when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the "on" position only. Furthermore, Mazda interprets the vehicles suspension height pursuant to S5.1 and S5.5 to be the intended suspension height for the vehicle given the conditions of S4, i.e., 30 mph veh icle speed and steered wheels are positioned straight ahead.

Question C1: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 correct?

Question C2: For the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 204, what means of maintaining the intended suspension height for a given vehicle speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA?

Appendix D: FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection"

Prologue: This standard establishes performance criteria for the protection of vehicle occupants involved in crashes. Section S5 of this standard establishes occupant crash protection requirements for a range of crash scenarios. Section S8 of this stan dard specifies the testing conditions to be used for frontal, lateral, and rollover compliance testing. Section S8.1.1(d), "Vehicle test attitude," specifies the procedure for determining the vehicle test attitude that is to be used for testing. Specif ically, this section requires that the vehicle's pretest attitude,"...shall be equal to either the as delivered or fully loaded

attitude or between the as delivered and fully loaded attitude." The as delivered attitude is defined by S8.1.1(d) as being,"...the distance between a level surface and a standard reference point on the test vehicle's body, directly above each wheel ope ning, when the vehicle is in its "as delivered" condition. The "as delivered" condition is the vehicle as received at the test site..." Because it is highly likely that the test vehicle will not have been operated for a period of days prior to arriving at the test site, the suspension height may have fallen by "y" mm. The fully loaded attitude is defined as the attitude of the vehicle when loaded in accordance with S8.1.1(a) or (b) and a determination of the height of the suspension at the fully load ed condition is made from the same level surface, using the same standard reference points, as were used to determine the "as delivered" condition. The definition of the "as delivered" condition is quite clear. However, Mazda interprets the "fully load ed condition" of the vehicle to be the condition when the vehicle's ignition is "on". In this instance it is likely that the height of the standard reference points on the vehicles body when in the "fully loaded condition" relative to the level surface will be greater than for the "as delivered" condition. Conversely, conventional vehicle suspension systems will like have an "as delivered" height greater than the "fully loaded" height. However, this fact is of no importance as S8.1.1(d) states that t he pretest vehicle attitude may be,"...between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude." With respect to the injury criteria specified by section S6 of this standard, Mazda's interpretation is that these criteria must be met with the vehicle's ig nition in the "on" position only.

Section S8.2.7 specifies additional test conditions to be used for lateral moving barrier crash testing. Section S8.2.7(a) states that the vehicle,"...is at rest in its normal attitude." Mazda interprets the meaning of "normal attitude" to be that vehi cle attitude which is intend when the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition, with the vehicle loaded pursuant to S8.1.1(a) or (b), and while the vehicle is at rest.

Appendix D (con't): FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant crash protection" Question D1: Is Mazda's interpretation of the definition of the "fully loaded condition" correct with respect to the condition of the ignition switch?

Question D2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the irrelevance of the relative relationship between the "as delivered" and "fully loaded" conditions correct?

Question D3: Is Mazda's interpretation of the meaning of "between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude" correct?

Question D4: For the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 208, what means of maintaining the intend suspension height for a given vehicle speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA? Question D5: Is Mazda's interpretation of the meaning of "normal attitude" correct?

Appendix E: FMVSS No. 212, "Windshield mounting"

Prologue: Customarily, compliance testing to the requirements of this standard is conducted concurrently with compliance testing to the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Therefore, many of the test protocol issues that might be raised in thi s instance have already been raised in Appendix D. Moreover, NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems at the request of Mazda. This interpretation was issued on August 10, 1982. The central premise of NHTSA's interpretation was that the subject vehicle could possibly be operated at two distinct suspension heights at any given vehicle speed. In that instance such a situation was possible because the suspension height was manua lly determined, i.e., established by the operator, thereby justify compliance testing with the vehicle's suspension height adjusted to any position possible or at minimum to the worst case position. However, the ACS system described in the cover letter to these appendices states that the vehicle's suspension height is determined by an on-board electronic controller and not by the vehicle operator. Consequently, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehicle speed an d loading condition as is the case with conventional suspension systems. Therefore, because it is possible to determine exactly what the intended suspension height should be for a given situation, it is Mazda's opinion that the test vehicle should be te sted at the intended suspension height given the statutory speed and loading requirements. Lastly, the final issue is whether the requirements of FMVSS No. 212 must be met with the vehicles ignition in the "on" or "off" condition, or both. Using a "int ended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of FMVSS No. 212 are to met whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition only.

Question E1: Is Mazda's interpretation that NHTSA previously issued interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems not applicable in this instance given the facts presented?

Question E2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 212 with respect to the state of the vehicle ignition switch correct?

Appendix F: FMVSS No. 219, "Windshield zone intrusion"

Prologue: Customarily, compliance testing to the requirements of this standard is conducted concurrently with compliance testing to the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Therefore, many of the test protocol issues that might be raised in this instance have already been raised in Appendix D. Moreover, NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems at the request of Mazda. This interpretation was issued on August 10, 1982. The central premise of NHTSA's interpretation was that the subject vehicle could possibly be operated at two distinct suspension heights at any given vehicle speed. In that instance such a situation was possible because the suspension height was manual ly determined, i.e., established by the operator, thereby justify compliance testing with the vehicle's suspension height adjusted to any position possible or at minimum to the worst case position. However, the ACS system described in the cover letter t o these appendices states that the vehicle's suspension height is determined by an

on-board electronic controller and not by the vehicle operator. Consequently, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehicle speed and loading condition as is the case with conventional suspension systems. Therefore, because it is possible to determine exactly what the intended suspension height should be for a given situation, it is Mazda's opinion that the test vehicle should be tested at the intended suspension height given the statutory speed and loading require ments. Lastly, the final issue is whether the requirements of FMVSS No. 219 must be met with the vehicles ignition in the "on" or "off" condition, or both. Using a "intended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of FMVSS No. 219 are to met whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition only.

Question F1: Is Mazda's interpretation that NHTSA previously issued interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems not applicable in this instance given the facts presented?

Question F2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 219 with respect to the state of the vehicle ignition switch correct?

Appendix G: FMVSS No. 301, "Fuel system integrity" Prologue: Customarily, compliance testing to the requirements of this standard is conducted concurrently with compliance testing to the frontal crash and lateral requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Therefore, many of the test protocol issues that might be ra ised in this instance have already been raised in Appendix D. Moreover, NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems at the request of Mazda. This interpretation was issued on Augus t 10, 1982. The central premise of NHTSA's interpretation was that the subject vehicle could possibly be operated at two distinct suspension heights at any given vehicle speed. In that instance such a situation was possible because the suspension heigh t was manually determined, i.e., established by the operator, thereby justify compliance testing with the vehicle's suspension height adjusted to any position possible or at minimum to the worst case position. However, the ACS system described in the co ver letter to these appendices states that the vehicle's suspension height is determined by an on-board electronic controller and not by the vehicle operator. Consequently, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehi cle speed and loading condition as is the case with conventional suspension systems. Therefore, because it is possible to determine exactly what the intended suspension height should be for a given situation, it is Mazda's opinion that the test vehicle s hould be tested at the intended suspension height given the statutory speed and loading requirements. Lastly, the final issue is whether the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 must be met with the vehicles ignition in the "on" or "off" condition, or both. U sing a "intended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 are to met whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition only.

Section S7.3 of this standard specifies that the test conditions that are to be used during rear moving barrier crash testing are those specified by

section S8.2 of FMVSS No. 208. The issues that might be raised regarding S7.3, therefore, have already been raised in Appendix D.

Question G1: Is Mazda's interpretation that NHTSA previously issued interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems not applicable in this instance given the facts presented?

Question G2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 with respect to the state of the vehicle ignition switch correct?

Appendix H: 49 CFR Part 581, "Bumper Standards" Prologue: The stated scope and purpose of this standard is, "...to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of passenger motor vehicles from low speed collisions." NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to a djustable height suspension systems. One of these interpretations was issued by NHTSA on February 12, 1985 at the request of a confidential applicant. Another interpretation was issued May 16, 1986 at the request of Subaru of America. In the interpreta tion issued on February 12, 1985, NHTSA states,"...the vehicle is required to meet the pendulum test (581.6(b)) of Part 581 in any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates, and the barrier test (581.6(c)) of Part 581 when the engine is idling." In the subsequent interpretation of 581.6, issued on May 16, 1986, NHTSA states, "Given the absence of a specific test condition concerning suspension height, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage crite ria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted." Consequently, with respect to 581.6(c) these interpretations appear to be in conflict when applying the regulations of Part 581 to the ACS system in that the 1985 interpretation states that the damage criteria must be met at IDLE while the 1986 interpretation states that the damage criteria must be met at ANY height position to which the system can be adjusted. Moreover, the 1985 interpretation infers that the damage criteria for 581 .6(c) must be met when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the "on" condition only. Furthermore, the 1985, with respect to 581.6(b), and 1986 interpretations seem to be in conflict with this standards stated purpose to reduce physical damage to motor ve hicles in LOW speed collisions by requiring bumpers to meet the damage criteria of 581.5 at,"...any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates..."

Question H1: Could NHTSA please provide an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581 with respect to the ACS system?

ID: 07-004354--4 Oct 07--sa

ID: New Holland Tire

ID: 22944.rbm

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
FSSA Consultant
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106





Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your correspondence regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) recent final rule on vehicle modifications for individuals with disabilities. You ask about the applicability of that rule to a conversion that requires a lowered floor.

By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States, i.e., vehicles that are driven on the public roads and highways of the United States, be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's most important functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). Many of these standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles, while others do so for items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the make inoperative provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). While portions of several FMVSSs were subject to the exemption, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, and FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, were not. Additionally, the exception was limited to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

In your letter, you raised several questions related to the February 27 final rule that are detailed below.

1) Is there a "grace period" in which vendors can still modify vans without regard to this new ruling?

NHTSA has never provided a "grace period" during which businesses could modify vehicles in a manner that would negate compliance with applicable FMVSSs. Rather, the Part 595 exemption allows businesses to make such modifications subject to the terms of the exemption. The exemption took effect April 30, 2001. Prior to that time, NHTSA considered requests from businesses or individual vehicle owners on a case-by-case basis. NHTSA issued letters stating that it would not take enforcement action against the business if it made the modifications detailed in its correspondence to the agency.

The final rule also imposed certain reporting requirements for businesses that avail themselves of the Part 595 exemption. Those requirements did not take effect until August 27, 2001. The separate effective date for the reporting requirements did not create a "grace period" from the prohibition against making required safety equipment inoperative.

2) Can the air bag exemption (FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection) be granted if another type vehicle could be done without interfering with the air bag system or its components?

The Part 595 exemption does not require a different vehicle to be used in situations where modification could be done on that vehicle in a manner that does not negate compliance with a portion of a FMVSS that is included in the Part 595 exemption. However, if a vehicle has not yet been purchased, the purchaser should consider whether another vehicle may be more appropriate for the types of contemplated modifications.

3) Is it reasonable to believe that moving the under-the-seat air bag module would affect the operation of the OEM system? Would moving the module (such as between the two front seating locations) require new crash testing to provide needed documentation that the system has been recertified in this configuration?

It is certainly possible that moving an air bag module or sensor could affect the operation of the original system. While a modifier would need to assure itself that such a modification does not undermine compliance with a standard that is not subject to a Part 595 exemption, NHTSA has included certain relevant portions of FMVSS No. 208 in the Part 595 exemption.

4) To our knowledge there is not a crash tested lowered floor Chevy G-1500 conversion type. Lowering the floor 4" would either require relocating the OEM tank, rerouting the fuel filler neck and hoses and or replacing the tank with an aftermarket model. General Motors does not offer a factory approved replacement fuel tank and fuel delivery system. Would any of these modification methods be compliant with FMVSS 301?

As noted above, FMVSS No. 301 is not included in the Part 595 exemption. Accordingly, a modifier must assure that vehicle modifications do not negate compliance with the standard. However, it is not possible for NHTSA to answer your question "Would any of these modification methods be compliant with FMVSS No. 301?" NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment items, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products or vendors. Furthermore, we cannot provide specific information as to whether the types of potential modifications you have discussed would have the effect of taking the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. This responsibility lies with the modifier. If a lowered floor is desired, one way to provide assurance that modifications do not undermine compliance is to purchase a vehicle with a lowered floor that has been certified as complying with FMVSS No. 301. Another way is by modifying the vehicle pursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of crash-testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 301. For example, we believe that the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) has successfully crash-tested a vehicle with a lowered floor and that it provides an explanation of how to make such a modification to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. Finally, a modifier may be able to use engineering analysis alone to determine whether the vehicle modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. This last option is the most risky since there is no crash-test data to verify the soundness of the modifier's judgment.

5) Moving the anti-lock brake sensor may affect the braking system. FMVSS No. 105 was not granted permission to be made inoperative. Would moving the module from the OEM location require testing and recertification? What method of testing would satisfy the recertification requirement?

As discussed in response to the previous question, any modification that may take a vehicle out of compliance with a particular safety standard must be done in a manner that does not take the vehicle out of compliance unless the affected portion of the standard is covered be the Part 595 exemption. If the exemption is not applicable, the modifier must assure itself that the vehicle has not been taken out of compliance. Since FMVSS No. 105 does not require destructive crash-testing, the modifier may choose to run the test protocol set forth in FMVSS No. 105. Alternatively, the modifier may be able to rely on the other alternatives provided in the response to the previous question.

NHTSA cannot provide information as to whether the types of potential modifications you have discussed would have the effect of taking the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301 or FMVSS No. 105. Such responsibility lies with the modifier. As noted above, the critical factor is whether the vehicle, as modified, would pass NHTSA's compliance tests for those standards. Absent such vehicle specific test data, we urge vehicle modifiers to work closely with vehicle manufacturers to determine whether a potential modification would take a vehicle out of compliance.

I hope the addresses your concerns. Please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202)366-2992, should you have any additional questions about this matter.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.4/4/02