ID: nht74-1.47

DATE: 11/12/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 8, 1974, question whether a front axle automatic pressure limiting valve may be removed during the burnish procedure to permit effective burnish of the front brakes.

The answer to your question appears in Notice 6 to Docket 74-10 in response to a similar inquiry from International Harvester. A copy of that notice is enclosed for your information. It amends S6.1.8.1 to require that any automatic pressure limiting valve be in use except in the case where the temperature of the hottest brake on a rear axle exceeds the temperature of the hottest brake on a front axle by more than 125 degrees F. A bypassed valve is reconnected if the temperature of the hottest brake on a front axle exceeds the temperature of the hottest brake on a rear axle by 100 degrees F.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

October 9, 1974

Richard Dyson -- U.S. Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: 49 CFR Part 571, FMVSS 121 - Air Brake Systems

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Per Federal Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, Part 393, Section 393.48, use of automatic devices for reducing front wheel brake effort is permitted on vehicles complying to FMVSS 121.

With the automatic pressure reduction valve in the front axle, Oshkosh Truck Corporation has found that during burnishing of some vehicles per Section 6.1.8.1 of FMVSS 121, the rear brakes reach 500 degrees F, much earlier than the front axle brakes because of the automatic reduction of brake force to the front axle and, therefore, effective burnishing of the front brakes is not achieved.

Please advise if the automatic device to reduce the front wheel brake force can be removed during the burnishing procedure.

Very truly yours,

P. K. Kamath -- Sr. Safety Engineer

ID: nht93-7.46

DATE: November 1, 1993

FROM: Dan Neaga -- Project Engineer, Advanced Engineering Business Unit, Johnson Controls, Inc.; Dianna Sabo -- Engineering Manager, Advanced Engineering Business Unit, Johnson Controls Inc.

TO: DOCKET SECTION, NHTSA

COPYEE: S. Furr; B. Batzer

TITLE: Re: Request For Clarification On FMVSS 213 S5.2.2.1 (b)

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/9/94 From John Womack To Dan Neaga And Dianna Sabo (A42; Std. 213)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam:

This letter is in regard to FMVSS 213 S5.2.2.1 (b). Johnson Controls, Inc. designs child seats for children that weigh from 20 to 60 pounds. We have developed a new design for an Integrated Child Restraint System (ICRS) that uses the same seat back surface as the adult occupant. Therefore, no lateral support other than the one offered to the adult occupant is provided.

We have enclosed a set of three illustrations that show a generic adult seat (a) with the child seat in fully stored position; (b) with the child seat deploying; (c) with the child seat fully deployed.

The wording in FMVSS 213 S5.2.2.1 (b) is "Each system surface provided for support of the side of the child's torso shall be flat or concave and have a continuous surface of not less than 24 square inches for systems recommended for children weighing 20 pounds or more . . . ", and we have interpreted it to mean that lateral support is not necessarily required. Please confirm that surface provided for support of the side of the child's torso is not required by FMVSS 213 under these circumstances.

The information and design concepts that we have provided you with are confidential. If you need additional information regarding this matter, please contact me at the above address, or you may reach me at [Illegible Word]. My fax number, should you require it, is (313) 454-7874.

2

We thank you very much for your cooperation and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.

Enclosures

ID: nht94-1.79

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs, Ltd. (England)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to faxes dated 2/11/94 and 2/10/94 from Jerry L. Steffy to Taylor Vinson (OCC 9661)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAXes of February 10 and 11, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You have informed us that in Canada you were able recently "to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp use." You have asked whether it is possible to do the same in the United States.

The answer depends upon whether the ECE Reg. 20 headlamp also meets FMVSS No. 108. Motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be equipped with headlamps that comply with FMVSS No. 108. This standard does not incorporate ECE Reg. 20. Therefore, importation and sale in the United States of any motor vehicle equipped with an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp that does not meet Standard No. 108 would be in violation of our law.

You have also asked whether our temporary exemption procedures, 49 CFR Part 555, would permit you to apply for an exemption for this headlamp on the grounds of "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." After one model year, you would change to a headlamp that meets FMVSS 108.

The exemption procedures are available to manufacturers of motor vehicles, but not motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the manufacturer of an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp could not apply for an exemption. The appropriate petitioner would be the manufacturer of a mo tor vehicle on which a Reg. 20 headlamp is installed as original equipment. We assume that Triumph Designs is associated with the manufacturer of Triumph motorcycles, and this manufacturer would be eligible to submit a petition under Part 555.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht91-5.32

DATE: September 3, 1991

FROM: D. G. Kong -- General Manager, Certification Business Dept., KIA Motors Corp.

TO: Andrew J. Sklover -- Special Assistant to the Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to D. G. Kong (A38; Std. 216, Part 567)

TEXT:

We are pleased to get to give our best regards to you this time since your visit to our company last year.

Since then, we are trying to do our best for developing our future models suitable for American market in accordance with the guidance of NHTSA.

For the lack of information on USA safety certification, we are in need of your help for the followings: (A) FMVSS 216 Roof Crush Resistance for Convertibles : According to S3(c) of FMVSS 216 Roof Crush Resistance, convertible vehicles are exempted from application for this rule, we understood. We'd like to know the clear & detailed definition of convertibles. Let's make an example for your reference. The soft roofline of ISUZU Amigo (Sports Utility Vehicle) is composed of half hard top with steel and half soft top with plastic or special cloth. Is it called by convertible in connection with application of FMVSS 216 requirements effective September 1, 1993? (Soft top can be detachable in use.)

(B) Submitting reports to NHTSA and state governments: In relation to USA Safety certification, there are lots of laws & regulations of federal/state goverments, we know. What regulations in addition to FMVSS do we should follow (expecially in state regulations) and what reporting (such as, Bumper-Indiana and VIN Reporting-NHTSA) do we have to submit when we proceed USA Safety Certifiction? We'd like know the relationship of laws and regulations between federal states.

We're wondering if you are in charge of these queries or not, but you are kindly requested to deliver the message to the man in charge.

We'll do endeavor to keep up with the line of NHTSA to improve the safety of motor vehicles and at last wish you and your family every happiness.

ID: GF003447

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff asking whether your companys "Keyless System" would satisfy certain requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (FMVSS No. 114). Specifically, you ask whether this "Keyless System" complies with the requirements of S4.2.1(a), S.4.3, and S.4.5. Further, you ask whether an engine "Stop" button is permissible under FMVSS No. 114. The issues raised in your letter are addressed below.

Before I address your questions, I note that you requested confidential treatment for the identity of your company and for yourself. I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [      ] will be kept confidential from the public. You have provided a redacted set of documents (without any information identifying you or your company), in which you described your "Keyless System" and posed questions regarding the system and FMVSS No. 114. This redacted set of documents will be made publicly available.

Your letter discusses an electronically coded "transceiver" which functions as a key. The "transceiver" is not engaged in any device, and simply remains in the drivers possession. When the "transceiver" is inside the passenger compartment of the vehicle, the vehicle can be started and operated by virtue of an authentication process under which an electronic code from the "transceiver" is transmitted and stored in the electronic control module. You ask us whether this "Keyless System" satisfies certain requirements of FMVSS No. 114.

In previous interpretation letters, we stated that FMVSS No. 114 would permit a keyless entry system activated by an electronically coded card (similar to your companys "Keyless System"). We have followed those interpretation letters in addressing the four questions raised in your letter.

Requirements of S4.2.1(a).

According to your letter and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin, removal of the "key" ("transceiver" code stored in the electronic control module) can be accomplished only when the transmission gear lever becomes locked in the "park" position. You ask whether the "Keyless System" described in your letter satisfies the requirements of S4.2.1(a). Our answer is yes.

S4.2.1(a) of Standard No. 114 states that (with certain exceptions not relevant here) the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall, when tested under the procedures in S5.2, prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

Your company's "Keyless System" would be permitted by S4.2.1(a) because the "transceiver" code cannot be removed unless the transmission gear lever becomes locked in "park" position as the direct result of removing the "transceiver" code. According to your statements, the transmission lever becomes locked in park as a direct result of "transceiver" code removal, which occurs only after (a) the transmission lever is engaged in park and (b) engines "Stop" button is depressed. Until the gear lever is locked in "park," the "transceiver" code remains stored in the electronic control module the same way a conventional key would remain in the ignition switch. Therefore, your system satisfies the requirements of S4.2.1(a) because the key cannot be removed unless the transmission lever becomes locked in "park" position as the direct result of removing the key.

Requirements of S4.3.

In your letter, you state that when the "transceiver" code remains in the electronic control module, the steering column lock and the immobilizer system cannot be activated. You ask whether the "Keyless System" described in your letter satisfies the requirements of S.4.3. Our answer is yes.

S4.3 states that, except when an automatic transmission vehicle is in "park," the means for deactivating the vehicles engine or motor shall not activate any device installed pursuant to S4.2(b) to prevent the vehicles steering or forward self-mobility or both. The purpose of this provision is to assure that the drivers action of turning the engine off does not create an unsafe condition by locking the steering (otherwise known as "steering lock-up") or the wheels while the vehicle is in motion.

In the present case, the means for deactivating the vehicles engine is a "Stop" button. As previously discussed, when the engine is switched off but the gear lever is not in park, the "transceiver" code remains in the electronic control module. Because the "transceiver" code remains in the electronic control module, the steering column lock and the immobilizer system cannot be activated. Accordingly, your companys "Keyless System" would be permitted by S4.3.

Driver Warning Requirements of S4.5.

You ask whether your systems acoustical warning and dashboard alert to the driver satisfy the requirements of S.4.5. Our answer is yes.

S4.5 of Standard No. 114 states that a warning to the driver shall be activated whenever the "key" required by S4.2 has been left in the locking system and the drivers door is opened, except: (a) after the key has been manually withdrawn to a position from which it may not be turned; (b) when the key-locking system is in the "on" or "start" position; or (c) after the key has been inserted in the locking system and before it has been turned.

As previously stated, in the event the engine is turned off and the transmission lever is not in the "park" position, the "transceiver" code remains in the electronic control module. This is analogous to the situation in which a conventional key is left in the "off" position of the ignition switch, and S4.5 requires activation of the warning if the drivers door is opened. In the present case, if the drivers door is open, your "Keyless System" provides for an acoustical warning, as well as a yet unspecified message on the dashboard, alerting the vehicle operator to place the transmission lever in the "park position." Accordingly, your companys "Keyless System" would be permitted by S4.5.

In previous letters, we have observed that if a device similar to a transceiver remained in the car, e.g., in the pocket of a jacket laying on the seat, any person would only need to depress the brake pedal and depress the "Start" button to start the engine. In the absence of some kind of additional warning, there appears to be a greater likelihood of drivers inadvertently leaving transceiver-type devices in the car, as compared to a traditional key. This is because the driver must physically touch a traditional key, unlike the transceiver-type device, as part of turning off the engine. You may wish to consider whether there are any practicable means of reducing the possibility of drivers inadvertently leaving their transceiver devices in the car.

Engine "Stop" button.

You state that your "Keyless System" permits the engine to be turned off via a "Stop" button while the vehicle is in motion. This feature allows the driver to interrupt motive power and fuel supply in emergency situations. This feature can be used only if the service brakes are activated and vehicle speed is less than 6 mph. You ask whether an engine "Stop" button is permissible under FMVSS No. 114. Our answer is yes.

Please note that Standard No. 114 does not regulate the method of engine deactivation while the vehicle is in motion. However, we encourage you to carefully consider all available safety precautions to ensure that the driver or other vehicle occupants including children do not inadvertently misuse this emergency deactivation feature.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:114
d.7/17/03

ID: Wallach.3

ID: Shih.3

Mr. Simon S. Shih
4 Teal
Irvine, CA 92604

Dear Mr. Shih:

This responds to your e-mail, in which you seek clarification regarding the legality of high intensity discharge (HID) headlamp conversion sets, specifically whether it is legal to manufacture or sell sets of HID headlamps to replace original equipment halogen headlamp sets. We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions related to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. As a preliminary matter, we would clarify that we have no authority either to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. We do advise correspondents of the relationship of their products to applicable FMVSSs and other regulations that we administer. If a product is covered by one or more of our safety standards, its manufacturer must certify compliance of the product with all applicable FMVSSs prior to its importation or offering such product for sale. The symbol "DOT" on replacement lighting equipment is often mistaken for "DOT approval" of the equipment, but, in fact, it reflects the manufacturers own certification of compliance.

We believe that your questions are addressed by our March 13, 2003, letter of interpretation to Mr. Galen Chen (see enclosure). In that letter, we interpreted FMVSS No. 108 as requiring headlamps manufactured to replace original equipment headlamps to comply with all applicable photometry requirements using the replaceable light sources intended for use in the headlighting system on the vehicle for which the replacement headlamp is intended. Unlike other lamps, FMVSS No. 108 specifically regulates headlighting systems, including their light sources (see S7.1, S7.5, and S7.7). We adhered to this interpretation in a recent interpretation to Calcoast-ITL (69 FR 60464 (Oct. 8, 2004))(see enclosure).

Because replaceable light sources are, by regulation, designed to be non-interchangeable, it would not be possible for an HID headlamp conversion set to meet the standards photometry requirements for an original equipment headlamp system using a halogen light source, so the replacement lamps could not be sold for this purpose. Furthermore, a headlamp dealer or motor vehicle repair business could not remove the original halogen headlamps and install HID replacement headlamps without violating 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We cannot comment on the specific replacement lighting products that you mentioned because we do not have sufficient information on them.

Finally, in a subsequent e-mail, you asked whether our regulations require HID lighting systems to include "auto-leveling" and washing systems, similar to those incorporated in vehicles sold in Europe. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 108 does specify aimability performance requirements under paragraph S7.8 of the standard, but that paragraph does not require an "auto-leveling" capability. The standard also does not contain any requirement for a headlamp washing system.

s it may be of interest to you, we also have enclosed a copy of our November 18, 2002, letter of interpretation to Mr. Jeff Deetz, which relates to kits that substitute the type of light source in existing headlamps.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

nclosures
ref:108
d.11/2/04

ID: nht95-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 4, 1995

FROM: Courtney M. Price -- Reid & Priest

TO: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation/Brake Locker

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO COURTNEY M. PRICE (REDBOOK(4)); Part 567.7; STD. 105

TEXT: On behalf of Maatzorit Ltd. ("Maatzorit"), I am writing to request confirmation of Maatzorit's interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems; FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses; and Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Nationa l Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) as they relate to the BRAKE LOCKER (U.S. Patent No. 5,375,684) which Maatzorit has developed and will market. n1 Specifically, we are requesting confirmation that installatio n of the BRAKE LOCKER is not precluded by FMVSS 105 or Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. We understand that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") does not give approval of or certify devices such as the BRAKE LOCKER and that confirmation of Maatzorit's interpretation will be based upon the information provided and the circumstances described herein.

n1 FMVSS 105 and FMVSS 106 specify requirements for hydraulic brake systems and brake hoses, respectively. Section 108 of the Safety Act provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicl e safety standard.

The purpose of the BRAKE LOCKER is to prevent the theft of parked vehicles by locking the brakes while theft is attempted. The product also is designed to enable regular brake usage while being driven by the car owner or another authorized driver.

The BRAKE LOCKER is installed in the engine compartment on the brake fluid line between the brakes and the brake pump. A controlled hydraulic tap enables two positions:

Position A: free passage of brake fluid from pump to brakes and back again.Position B: free passage of brake fluid from pump to brakes, and blockage of the passage in the other direction using a check valve.

Position B causes the vehicle to be stopped and locked, for 15-20 minutes after the brake is pressed.

The BRAKE LOCKER is designed to be controlled by an electronic coded transmitter. When preparing to move the car and activating the transmitter, the code will be recognized and the electric motor will be activated, thus bringing the hydraulic tap to Position A described above.

Upon parking the vehicle, a press on the transmitter push button activates the motor to transfer the hydraulic tap to Position B described above, thus preventing release of the brakes, after the brakes are pressed, for 15-20 minutes.

More specifically, the BRAKE LOCKER operates as follows:

1. The system is activated and a control light goes on in the driver's compartment.

2. Upon pressing the portable transmitter, the control light starts blinking, the electronic motor then turns the hydraulic tap to Position A which enables the brake fluid to pass freely in both directions, and the control light then turns off.

3. Upon turning the car ignition switch on, the hydraulic tap remains in Position A and the system is prevented from being activated.

4. Upon turning the car ignition switch off and then pressing the portable transmitter, the control light starts blinking, the electronic motor then turns the hydraulic tap to the Position B "active" position so that every press on the brake pedal ca uses the brakes to be locked, and the control light will be on.

If you need further information or if a meeting with representatives of Maatzorit would be helpful to you in confirming our interpretation, please call me. I look forward to receiving your response to our request at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

ID: nht91-1.47

DATE: February 20, 1991

FROM: Saburo Inui -- Corporate Manager, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 -- High Intensity Discharge Headlamps

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Saburo Inui (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This is a request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 108 concerning High Intensity Discharge Headlamps ("HID").

Although in the February 8, 1990 amendment of FMVSS 108 (Docket No. 85-15; Notice 12) NHTSA clarified that HID headlamps are not excluded as integral beam headlamp systems, Toyota has some additional concerns.

1. Configuration:

S5.4, Equipment combinations, provides that "(t)wo or more lamps . . . may be combined if the requirements for each lamp . . . are met . . . ."

S4. Definitions, defines "Integral Beam Headlamp" as "a headlamp comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source, that is neither a standardized sealed beam headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.3 nor a replaceable bulb headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.5."

The Toyota HID headlamp comprises "an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source" (see Figure 1), and although it contains replaceable bulbs (the inexpensive parking lamp and turn signal lamp bulbs are replaceable), it is not a "replaceable bulb headlamp DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO PARAGRAPH S7.5." (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, the Toyota combination HID headlamp system is not precluded by FMVSS 108, provided of course that all other applicable requirements are met. (To suggest otherwise would require the replacement of the entire assembly at substantial cost should only an inexpensive parking lamp or turn signal bulb fail.)

2. Hard-wire connection:

Due to limited space for accommodation of HID headlamps in the vehicle, it may not be practicable to integrate the ballast (starter and converter) into the headlamp enclosure.

In one case, the ballast would be divided into two units -- a starter and a converter -- permanently connected using hard-wire (electrical wire resistant to cutting and abrasion) as depicted in Figure 2.

Such a headlamp configuration would still constitute an integral beam headlamp system, we believe.

3. Hard-wire and connector:

In some cases, vehicle body construction may dictate that the ballast units be installed in the vehicle separately, and then permanently connected electrically.

In such cases, electrical connectors would have to be provided between the starter and the converter as depicted in Figure 3.

To be considered an integral beam headlamp system under FMVSS 108, we believe all three of the following conditions would have to be met by such an HID headlamp:

(1) Connectors would be permanently coupled at vehicle assembly.

(2) Only complete headlamp systems would be available as replacement parts, and not individual parts, such as a starter or converter.

(3) Connectors supplied with replacement parts for use by repair shops and garages would be designed to be fastened permanently after coupling (they would self-destruct if they were subsequently forced apart), and would be described in the shop manuals.

With these three conditions, headlamp replacement would always mean replacement of the entire headlamp system, resulting in consistency with conventional integral beam headlamp systems.

This "hard wire" or "hard wire and self-destruct connector" arrangement is indispensable to enable us to install our HID headlamp system into our U.S. vehicles. We therefore seek NHTSA's confirmation of our interpretations concerning the use of these headlamp systems.

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.

Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Manabu Morisaka of my staff at (202) 775-1707.

Attachments

Figures 1, 2, and 3 (Graphics omitted)

ID: ToyotaLSA_cmcv2

Chris Tinto, Director, Technical & Regulatory Affairs
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the proper positioning of a leg support system during a crash test specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection. As explained below, Toyota is correct in its understanding that the leg support system described in your letter is to be adjusted as an "other seat adjustment" under FMVSS No. 208.

On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less (65 FR 30680; Advanced air bag rule). That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance the protection of small and mid-size adults. The advanced air bag rule established a rigid barrier dynamic crash test using a 5^th percentile adult female test dummy. Since the advanced air bag rule was established, the agency has amended FMVSS No. 208 on several occasions, in part to provide clearer and more objective test procedures for use of the 5^th percentile adult female in testing.

In your letter, you explained that the Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota) has developed a "leg support adjustment system (LSA)," which extends the forward edge of a seat cushion to provide additional support to the thighs of taller occupants. As further described in a conversation between Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff and Ms. Christina Mullen of Toyota, the system extends the front trim of the seat by mechanical means. As additionally explained in your letter, the LSA is engaged by an occupant through an adjustment switch on the side of a seat. Your letter then asked if the LSA would be adjusted according to S16.2.10.2, Other seat adjustments, under the FMVSS No. 208 test procedure for the rigid barrier 5^th percentile female crash test.

S16.2.10 of FMVSS No. 208 provides the specifications for the driver and passenger seat set-up conditions for the rigid barrier 5^th percentile female crash test. S16.2.10.1, Lumbar support adjustment, specifies the proper position for lumbar support adjustments. S16.2.10.2 specifies the proper positioning of seat adjustments that provide additional support, other than a lumbar support adjustment. As originally adopted in the advanced air bag rule, this provision specifically referred to seat cushion and seat back side bolster adjustments.

In response to the advanced air bag rule, a manufacturer asked what would be required for vehicles with seat cushions that could be lengthened or shortened. In response, the agency amended the seat positioning procedure to specify the position for adjustable seat parts that provide the occupant additional support (66 FR 65376; December 18, 2001). The December 2001 final rule amended S16.2.10.2 to read:

Other seat adjustments. Position any adjustable parts of the seat that provide additional support so that they are in the lowest or most open adjustment position.

The LSA, as described in your letter, performs the same type of function as the seat cushion which gave rise to the amended S16.2.10.2. Therefore, that section specifies the position of the LSA.

Based on the diagrams you provided, it appears that the forwardmost edge of the seat cushion is higher in relation to the floor pan when the LSA is extended as opposed to when the LSA is fully retracted. S16.2.10.2 specifies that a vehicle equipped with an LSA would be tested with the LSA in the lowest position. Therefore, if we were to test a vehicle equipped with a LSA, we would place the LSA in its shortest and lowest position.

I hope you find this helpful. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.8/27/04