ID: nht90-4.22

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 104, Rules and Regulations, (5-30-90 Edition), pages 21868-21876 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-25-90 from S. Nishibori to P.J. Rice (OCC 5027)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). You were uncertain whether your shift lock emergency override system, your emergency key release, and your transmission park lock system comply w ith S4.2 and S4.3, as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). On July 29, 1990, you submitted a petition for reconsideration which the agency is currently considering. Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that:

"Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent remova l 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."

As explained below, we have made the following interpretations concerning your systems based on our understanding of them from your petition for reconsideration, your July 25, 1990 letter, and your discussions with agency staff.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not app rove any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 pe r violation up to $800,000.

Shift Lock Emergency Override You explained that your shift lock emergency override system is operable by depressing a button on the lower, rear portion of the shift lever. By depressing the button, the transmission may be shifted out of "park," independent of the ignition key posit ion or the key being in the ignition switch. You expressed your opinion that the transmission remains "locked" "park" until it is "unlocked," either by turning the ignition key to the

"on" position and depressing the brake pedal or by operating the emergency shift release override. This led you to conclude that your emergency shift override would be permissible under S4.2(b).

We disagree with your suggested interpretation. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must 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 th e key. Given the presence of the emergency shift release override, we do not believe the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be "locked" in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-lock ing system. Your alternative shift lock system in which the manual override would be operable only after removing a cover over the override lever would also not appear to comply with S4.2 because the presence of a cover would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system.

Emergency Key Release You explained that your emergency key release system facilitates removal of the ignition key in the event of an electrical system failure. That system permits overriding the ignition key lock, so that the ignition key can be removed from the vehicle and the driver can lock the vehicle. You explained that the emergency key release override is activated by removing a cover over the ignition switch and then using a screw driver to activate a hidden lever located inside the exposed ignition switch compart ment.

We do not concur with your suggested interpretation of S4.2. That requirement provides that "the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park." The regulatory text does not r efer to alternative methods of key removal such as the procedure you describe. While you state that virtually any key locking system can be overriden through some form of lock disassembly and associated procedures, we do not consider the simple override you describe to be similar to lock disassembly. Therefore, an emergency key release system in which the key could be removed in a position other than "park" would not comply with S4.2, regardless how the key could be removed. Nevertheless, such an eme rgency key release would be permissible if it were operable only while the "transmission or transmission shift lever were locked in the "park" position. You should be aware that we are evaluating such systems in our review of the petitions for reconside ration to the final rule.

Park Lock System You explained that your park lock system prevents drivers from inadvertently depressing the accelerator pedal rather than the brake pedal when shifting out of "park". This is accomplished by permitting the transmission lever to be moved out of "park" on ly if the ignition key is in the "on" position and the brake pedal is depressed. You further explained that if the transmission is placed in "park," the shift lever locks in that position when the ignition key is turned to the "off" position. You expre ssed your belief that your park lock system complies with S4.3, as amended.

I agree that your park lock system appears to comply with S4.3. That provision requires that the prime means for deactivating the vehicle's engine or motor, typically the ignition key, shall not activate the key-locking system described in S4.2(b). Bas ed on our understanding of your key-locking system, it appears to comply with S4.3 because that provision refers to the key-locking system and not a transmission shift lock. As you correctly note, the purpose of S4.3 is to prevent the potentially danger ous situation in which the ignition key of a moving vehicle is turned to the "off" position causing the steering column to lock.

You asked that we continue to consider your petition for reconsideration, if, as we have done, we concluded that some of your suggested interpretations were incorrect. We will notify you of our response to that petition as soon as we complete our review of it.

I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: nht90-4.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hiroshi Kato -- Vice President, Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from H. Kato to P.J. Rice (OCC 5193); Also attached to drawing of proposed illumination on rear panel garnish and photo of 1988 Pontiac Fiero (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of September 4, 1990, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 with respect to two of Mitsubishi's contemplated rear lighting plans.

In the first plan, the rear garnish panel located between the lamps that are mounted at the right and left extremities of the car would be dark but the word "Mitsubishi" in the center would be illuminated. In the second plan, the panel would be illumina ted as a supplemental taillamp, and the word would not. You ask if either plan would create an "impairment" of the required lighting equipment, within the prohibition of S5.1.3.

Judging by the photograph of the Pontiac Fiero that you enclosed, which featured a design similar to your first plan, it does not appear that this plan would create an impairment.

We note that the backup lamp is located in the garnish panel, approximately 15 mm from the word "Mitsubishi", and this raises a question with respect to the second plan. When the taillamps are illuminated, so that there is a broad sweep of red light acr oss the rear of the car, we would be concerned that the backup lamps in the garnish panel might not be readily perceived when activated. We would also be concerned that the illuminated panel might detract from the effectiveness of the stop lamps when th ey are activated. To ensure that the lighted panel creates no impairment of either the stop lamps or the backup lamps, it might be advisable to design it with an intensity that is lower than that of the adjacent taillamps.

The determination of impairment is to be made by the vehicle manufacturer in its certification that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not ques tion it.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht90-4.24

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Roger C. Fairchild -- Esq., Shutler & Low

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from R.C. Fairchild to P.J. Rice (OCC 4968)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 109, 110, 119, and 120 on tires and rim selection (49 CFR 571.109, 571.110, 571.119, and 571.120), asking about the applicability of certain provisions in the Tire and Rim Associa tion (TRA) Year Book, which those Federal safety standards incorporate by reference. As explained below, we agree that the adjustment factors in the TRA Year Book for inflation pressures and load ratings at different speeds are not applicable in determi ning compliance with Federal safety standards.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (Vehicle Safety Act, 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety st andards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not appro ve any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000.

Section S4.3 of Standard 109 requires a new pneumatic tire for passenger cars to be labeled with certain information including one size designation, the maximum inflation pressure, and the maximum load rating. S6.5 of Standard 119 has similar marking req uirements for tires on vehicles other than passenger cars. In particular, section 4.2.1(c) of Standard 109 and section 6.5(d) of Standard 119 require tires to be labeled with a maximum load rating not less than the lowest of any specified values in the manufacturer's submission or in a listed publication such as the TRA Yearbook, for tires of that size designation, type and each appropriate inflation pressure. For passenger car tires, these inflation pressures and load ratings are specified in tables in section one of the TRA Yearbook entitled, "'P' Type Tires Used on Passenger Cars and Station Wagons" and "'T' Type Spare Tires for Temporary use on Passenger Cars and Station Wagons." For tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, these inflation p ressures and load ratings are specified in the tables in section 2 of the TRA Yearbook.

Question One You first asked whether the Federal safety standards incorporate an independent vehicle speed adjustment factor in determining the "vehicle normal load" and "vehicle maximum load." Your question was based on provisions in the TRA Year Book which apply s uch a vehicle load adjustment factor for certain tires rated for a maximum speed above 130 mph. As you

are aware, S4.2 of Standard 110 provides that the vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating marked on the tire, and the vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in St andard 109's high speed performance test.

You are correct that an adjustment factor based on the vehicle's maximum speed capacity is not required to be used in determining compliance with Standard 110 and 120. As you noted, Standard 110's requirement, as specified in S4.2.2, takes into account an adjustment for high speed use by requiring that the normal vehicle load on a tire must not exceed the test load used in Standard 109's high speed performance test in S5.5 (i.e. 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating). Based on this provision an d Standard No. 110's use of the terms "vehicle maximum load" and "maximum loaded vehicle weight," we interpret S4.2 as applying to normal vehicle uses and not special high speed applications. In fact, incorporating a load adjustment factor based on spee ds of 130 to 168 mph, as the TRA provision does, would be contrary to motor vehicle safety if it encouraged vehicle operation at speeds far exceeding safe operating speeds. Therefore, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pres sures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards.

Question Two You also asked about a vehicle speed adjustment factor for the inflation pressure with passenger cars. As you explained, the TRA Year Book requires that the "speed category of the tire must match or exceed the theoretical maximum speed of the vehicle (i .e., actual maximum speed, as adjusted for tire inflation pressure using another factor specified by TRA)." TRA sets forth two speed categories: speeds up to 210 km/h (130 mph) and speeds above 210 km/h (130 mph).

As with the vehicle load adjustment factor which concerns normal vehicle applications, you are correct that an adjustment factor for inflation pressure based on the vehicle's maximum speed is not required to be used in determining compliance with Federal safety standards. Again, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal sa fety standards.

Question Three You then asked about the applicability to the Federal standards of TRA's recommended adjustments for tire inflation pressure and "service load" for tires used on trucks and buses, depending on the maximum speed capability of the vehicle. As with the adj ustment factors for passenger car tires, these adjustment factors are not relevant for compliance with Standard 119 or 120. Again, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone withou t applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions,

please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.25

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 28, 1990

FROM: Lawrence W. Rusk -- Project Engineer, Drum Brakes, Allied-Signal, Inc., Bendix Automotive Systems

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Ref: FMVSS105, Revision to Standard Effective September 1, 1991

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated November 7, 1990 from P.J. Rice to L.W. Rusk (A36; Std. 105)

TEXT:

This standard is being modified to no longer permit the "locking out" of drum brake automatic adjusters. In the past, release type automatic adjusters used on duo-servo rear drum brakes were made inoperative during the 105 test to prevent the tendency o f such mechanisms to overadjust during the test procedure. Overadjustment can cause poor cooling in the rear brakes, and eventually may lead to dragging rear brakes. An apply type auto adjuster is not subject to overadjustment during the 105, but most Bendix current production duo-servo drum brakes are fitted with the release type. Apply type adjusters have more piece parts than release type, and therefore do cost more in any brake they are used in.

Both current and revised standards allow for manual adjustment of the rear brakes after the initial burnish, and after each of three subsequent reburnishes. With inoperative adjusters, this is done to compensate for lining wear that occurs during the te st. Therefore, such manual adjustments were to expand the drum brake shoes to be closer to the drum. Since the revised standard still allows for adjustment at each burnish, with operative release type adjusters, manual adjustments could be made to back the shoes away from the drum and therefore counteract the release adjuster's tendency to overadjust.

In summary, it seems to us at Bendix Automotive Systems that duo-servo brakes with release type adjusters could be made to pass the revised 105 by making manual brake adjustments to offset overadjust tendencies. On September 26, 1990, I discussed this p roposal with Zach Fraser in the Enforcement Group. He suggested that I request a written interpretation from you on this proposal. Please consider this our formal request for an NHTSA position on the concept described herein.

If you or other representatives of NHTSA would like to discuss this issue further, I can be reached at (219) 237-2074. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht90-4.26

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 28, 1990

FROM: Takahiro Maeda -- Assistant to the Vice President, Engineering Divison, Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.; Signature by Michael Schmitt

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-7-90 to T. Maeda from P.J. Rice (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The purpose of this correspondence is to obtain your interpretation of minimum "edge to edge" separation between the tail/stop lamp and turn signals pursuant to FMVSS 108 Table IV.

Tail/stop lamp design may feature a housing whereby the bulb reflector subassembly does not extend outward to the edge of the entire assembly. Can "edge to edge" be construed as the edge of the bulb reflector or is it necessarily the outer edge of the en tire tail/stop lamp assembly. Please refer to the attached illustration.

We thank you for your insight into this question.

Attached illustration. (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-4.27

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 1, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr. -- Vice President, Public Affairs, General Counsel and Secretary, Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-2-90 from P.A. Hutchinson, Jr. to J.R. Curry

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curry inquiring about the status of Volkswagen's exemption from certain provisions relating to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. The Administrator has asked me to respond. Your letter requeste d NHTSA's position on the status of Volkswagen's exemption from the provisions of section 503(b)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C 1901 et seq.), and indicated that Volkswagen considers the exemption moot and terminated. As explained below, NHTSA considers the exemption terminated as of the beginning of model year (MY) 1989.

In 1981 (46 FR 54453, November 2, 1981), NHTSA granted Volkswagen's petition seeking an exemption from the general statutory provision that a manufacturer's domestically manufactured passenger automobiles and non-domestically manufactured passenger autom obiles be placed in separate fleets for purposes of determining compliance with CAFE standards. Such an exemption is authorized under section 503(b)(3)(A) of the statute. The statute prohibits a manufacturer so exempted from earning CAFE credits during the period of the exemption.

At Volkswagen's request, NHTSA granted the exemption for the indefinite future, reserving the agency's right to reconsider its action if it appeared that the exemption was no longer consistent with the purposes of the Act.

Your letter indicates that Volkswagen terminated the production of "domestically manufactured" vehicles (i.e., vehicles whose domestic content exceeds 75 percent) on June 30, 1987, and that Volkswagen's U.S. production was terminated entirely effective J uly 14, 1988. You believe the exemption (including its prohibition on the accumulation of CAFE credits) should have ended on June 30, 1987, but in no event later than July 14, 1988.

The primary legal issue raised by your letter is how exemptions can be terminated. Although the agency expects that exemptions will normally terminate only after affirmative agency action, automatic terminations are not precluded. However, we do not be lieve that an exemption terminates "automatically" merely because a manufacturer terminates its production of vehicles with more than 75 percent domestic content or halts all U.S. production. To conclude otherwise could create confusion and result in ex emptions being terminated in instances in which the exempted manufacturer wanted its exemption to continue. The possibility of such problems may be seen in a number of circumstances, e.g., if a manufacturer

temporarily halts U.S. production and then resumes it, or if it permits domestic content to fall below 75 percent temporarily and then raises it. We note that, in situations in which a manufacturer allows the percent domestic content to fall below 75 per cent and continues to produce vehicles in the U.S. with that level of domestic content, it is likely to be relatively easy for the manufacturer to raise the level back above 75 percent.

There are circumstances in Volkswagen's case, however, that lead us to conclude its exemption terminated at the time Volkswagen's U.S. production terminated in its entirety (July 14, 1988). We believe it was evident at that time that Volkswagen was not merely halting U.S. production, but doing so with an intention to permanently abandon such production. We note, for example, that Volkswagen actively sought purchasers for its U.S. production facility in advance of its termination of U.S. production. W hile a manufacturer could change its mind after permanently abandoning U.S. production, resumption of U.S. production would be relatively difficult. Further, subsequent events, up to and including Volkswagen's February 1990 letter, have confirmed the ap pearances in 1988 of permanent termination of production.

While it would have been preferable for those appearances to have been confirmed essentially contemporaneously, we conclude that Volkswagen terminated U.S. production with an intention to permanently abandon it, and that its exemption became moot at that time. Since Volkswagen could receive no benefit from the exemption, and clearly had no intention of resuming U.S. production, I conclude that the exemption should be considered terminated effective with the beginning of the first model year following t he company's cessation of U.S. production, i.e., MY 1989.

This decision is consistent with section 503(b)(3)(F) which provides that in any model year in which an exemption is effective, no credits may be earned. We interpret that section as requiring the bar to continue to the end of the model year in which th e exemption terminated. Hence, the prohibition against earned credits is deemed to have ended with the beginning of the 1989 model year. I note that during MY 1989, Volkswagen accrued a CAFE credit excess of $28,798,575 for its passenger cars, and $56, 310 for its light trucks.

I hope you have found this information useful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning this matter.

ID: nht90-4.28

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 1, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen R. Darling -- Presvac Systems (Burlington) Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to Federal Register, 49 CFR Part 575, (11-27-89 Edition), pages 48745-48749 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 5-11-90 from S.R. Darling to NHTSA (OCC 4805); Also attached to letter dated 5-31-90 from S.P. Wood to S. Nishibo ri (Part 575.6)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about an amendment to 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations, requiring vehicle manufacturers to include information in the owner's manual (or on a one-page document if there is no owner's manual) about the Nation al Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Auto Safety Hotline and its defect investigation and remedy and recall authority. (54 FR 48745, November 27, 1989; copy enclosed). I apologize for the delay in our response.

You explained that you are involved in three types of activities: the manufacture of liquid cargo vessel trailers; the fabrication of liquid cargo tanks; and the installation of these tanks onto existing or modified truck chassis. While you acknowledged your obligation to furnish the consumer information for the trailers you manufacture, you were uncertain about your responsibilities to furnish this information for the liquid cargo tanks you fabricate and install. You asked whether you are required to supply the specified consumer information in these instances. Your questions are responded to below.

Section 575.6(a)(2)(i), as amended, provides that "At the time a motor vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the manufacturer shall provide to the purchasers a specified sta tement about this agency's activities related to motor vehicle defects. Among other things, the specified statement indicates that if an owner believes the vehicle has a defect which could cause a crash or an injury or death, the owner should inform NHT SA in addition to notifying the manufacturer. The manufacturer's name must be indicated in the statement.

In responding to your questions, I note that section 575.6(a)(2)(i) applies to manufacturers of new motor vehicles. As a manufacturer of trailers, you are, of course, responsible for providing the specified consumer information to the first purchaser of such trailers (for purposes other than resale). On the other hand, in situations where you are not a vehicle manufacturer, e.g., where you may be installing tanks on used motor vehicles, the requirements would not apply.

Your letter also raises the issue of how section 575.6(a)(2)(i) applies in situations where there is more than one manufacturer of a motor vehicle, i.e., where vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages. While it is not clear from your letter, it i s possible that you may be a final stage manufacturer under 49 CFR Part 568. (The term "final stage manufacturer"

is defined in 49 CFR Part 568.3.)

As indicated above, section 575.6(a)(2)(i) specifies that, at the time a vehicle is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, "the manufacturer" must provide specified consumer information to the purchaser. Since the regulation re quires information to be provided at the time of first consumer sale, we construe it to require the manufacturer of the completed vehicle, i.e., the final stage manufacturer, to meet this requirement. As a general rule, the final stage manufacturer is t he manufacturer that has the closest relationship to the dealer which sells the vehicle to the consumer. It is also the manufacturer that the consumer will typically contact first in the event of problems.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tonda Anderson

TITLE: None

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter asking for an explanation of the legal requirements that would apply to a product you would like to market. Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not p ublicly disclose the details of this product. We hereby grant this request. Your letter, which contains the details of this product will not be made available to the public. As Steve Kratzke of my staff explained to you in a telephone conversation on September 19, all of our interpretation letters are available to the public. Thus, this letter will be publicly available. However, I will not discuss any specific features of your product in this letter.

Your letter indicated that your proposed product would alter the alignment of the shoulder belt to increase comfort for the person wearing the shoulder belt. This agency has discussed the legal requirements that might apply to devices that realign the s houlder belt in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. You should also note that your proposed product would be considered "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the Nati onal Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on such manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevan t laws and regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information or have some questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.3

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 13, 1990

FROM: Danny Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Utilimaster

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-13-90 to Danny Pugh from Paul Jackson Rice (A36; Std. 208; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

We are updating our files on FMVSS 208 in relationship to van conversions under 10,000 pounds GVW.

Is a van conversion classified as a passenger car, truck or a multi passenger vehicle?

On what date did van conversions require seatbelts, what type, and at what location?

Did van conversions ever require Type II seatbelts? At what location in the van?

Your help with these questions will be appreciated.

(Attached is a brochure from Aviator Conversions listing van conversion specifications and options. (Text and graphics omitted.))

ID: nht90-4.30

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-7-89 from S. Kadoya to S.P. Wood

TEXT:

This responds to your request for interpretations of several safety standards and the Bumper Standard, in connection with a planned "active" suspension system. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by this agency, it is the responsibility of the manufac turer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

According to your letter, Mazda is concerned about the protocol of compliance testing of vehicles equipped with an active suspension system. This concern arises because many standards do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during complianc e testing. As you noted, this has not been a concern for conventional suspension systems, since they do not provide for variable height.

Mazda's planned active suspension system would be actuated by hydraulic fluid or compressed air, with control pressure being developed by a hydraulic pump or air compressor driven off the engine. Consequently, the active suspension system would be opera tional only when the vehicle's engine is operating. At vehicle speeds in excess of "z" mph, where z is greater than 35 mph, the suspension height would be lowered by "x" mm from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation. If the engine/vehicl e were not used for several consecutive days, pressure in the control system would fall such that the supension height may be lowered from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation by "y" mm, where y is greater than x. The suspension height w ould return to the nominal or design position for vehicle operation after such an extended period of inoperation almost immediately after starting the vehicle's engine.

Before discussing your specific questions, I would like to discuss more generally the issue of how compliance is determined in situations where a standard does not specify a particular test condition. In issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards, N HTSA attempts to specify all relevant test conditions. The agency does this as part of ensuring that its standards are objective and practicable. As a practical matter, however, it is not possible to specify every conceivable test condition. This is p articularly true for ones which may only be relevant to

as-yet-undeveloped technologies.

In cases where a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we believe there are several relevant factors to consider in interpreting the standard. First, in the absence of specification of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. For example, where a standard does n ot specify suspension height, its requirements may need to be met at all heights to which the suspension can be adjusted. Before reaching such a conclusion, however, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes. Even if a s tandard is silent as to a particular test condition, the language of the standard or its purposes may indicate limitations on such test condition. Finally, in situations where a limitation on a particular test condition may appear to be appropriate, we also must consider whether the limitation is sufficiently clear, both with respect to justification and specificity, to be appropriate for interpretation. For example, in a situation where it may appear to be reasonable to limit a particular test condit ion but it is not obvious what particular limitation should be adopted, it would be inappropriate to select a particular limitation by interpretation. Instead, such a decision should be reached in rulemaking.

I will now address the specific questions asked in your letter.

Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

In asking about Standard No. 108, you stated the following:

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 the requirem ents of FMVSS 108 must be meet (sic),"...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 whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" postiion. Conversely, reflex reflectors, and turn signal lamps that also function as hazard warning signal flashers must comply with the lo cation 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 hours, at max imum, only.

You then asked two questions, (1) whether Mazda's understanding of the subject NHTSA interpretation is accurate, and (2) whether Mazda's interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers is correct.

I note that the February 1985 interpretation was written in the context of a vehicle with a variable height system actuated by hydraulic fluid. In that particular system, the hydraulic pressure relaxed over a period of

about three hours after the ignition was turned off, with the result that the vehicle assumed a lower height than it would have during driving. NHTSA stated the following:

We believe that the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose. Since vehicles at rest do not require use of headlamps, the minimum height requirement would be measured at the point after the ignition is on and when the car begins to travel (your letter implies that the time lag between turning on the ignition and restoration of a complying mounting height is a matter of seconds). On the other hand, the hazard warning signal lamps are frequently operated when the vehicle is stopped, and therefore the minimum mounting height of turn signal lamps, through which they operate, must be met with the ignition off, even if the system requires three hours to deplete itself and lower the v ehicle to its minimum height.

With respect to your question of whether Mazda's understanding of the interpretation is correct, I would like to note two points. First, while you state that "the requirements of FMVSS 108" must be met at any time in which lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment are to be operated for their intended purpose, our interpretation was limited to standard's minimum height requirement. While we are prepared, if asked, to address other requirements, our interpretations should be understood to be limited to their specific facts and conclusions. Second, while our interpretation only addressed headlamps and hazard warning signal lamps, you applied the interpretation for headlamps to taillamps, stoplamps, the license plate lamp, and side marker lam ps, and the interpretation for hazard warning signal lamps to reflex reflectors. We concur with this application, with respect to Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement.

We do not agree with Mazda's suggested interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers. You would apparently like us to conclude that Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement for hazard warning signal fla shers does not apply after a vehicle's ignition has been turned off for a matter of days.

In addressing how Standard No. 108 applies in the absence of a specification for vehicle height, our February 1985 interpretation differentiates between situations where the vehicle is operating and where it is not. Looking at the purpose of the require ments in question, we believe it is obvious that the minimum height requirement for headlamps is only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating, while the minimum height for hazard warning signal lamps is also relevant to situations where the vehicle is stopped and the ignition turned off. However, we believe that any determination that Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement for hazard warning signal flashers should not apply after a specified number of hours after the ignition has be en turned off is one that would need to be addressed in rulemaking.

It is therefore my opinion that the minimum mounting height of hazard warning signal lamps must be met at all heights with the ignition off, even if the system requires days to deplete itself and lower the vehicle

to its minimum height. If you believe that a time limitation should be placed on this requirement, I note that you can submit a petition for rulemaking requesting such a change.

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors

You requested an interpretation of section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 111, which generally requires a passenger car's rearview mirror to "provide a field of view with an included horizontal angle measured from the projected eye point of at least 20 degrees, and sufficient angle to provide a view of level road surface extending to the horizon beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle...." You noted that since the specified procedures for determining the location of the driver 's eye reference points are made referenced to points with the vehicle's cabin, your active suspension system would not affect these measurements. However, different vehicle heights would be relevant to whether there is a view of level road surface exte nding to the horizon beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle. You stated that, based on "intended purpose," Mazda's interpretation of Standard No. 111 is that the requirements of this standard are to be met when the vehi cle's ignition is in the "on" position as rearview mirrors are not intended to be used when the vehicle's engine is not operating.

You then asked two questions, (1) whether Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 with respect to the state of the vehicle's ignition switch is correct, and (2) for the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 1 11, what means of maintaining the intended suspension height for a given speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA.

We agree that the field of view requirement specified in S5.1.1 for rearview mirrors need not be met for vehicle heights that only occur when the engine is not on, since the requirement is only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating. Howe ver, the requirement would need to be at all vehicle heights that occur during vehicle operation, under the loading conditions specified in S5.1.1.

With respect to the issue of how suspension height should be maintained for purposes of compliance testing, you note early in your letter that, for reasons of practicality and safety, a vehicle's engine is not actually operational during compliance testi ng. However, since the active suspension system derives its power from the vehicle's engine, the system's ability to maintain and regulate suspension height is only possible during engine operation. You therefore indicated that Mazda is seeking guideli nes (for several standards) by which Mazda may be able to establish a means to maintain the intended suspension height for compliance testing purposes in the absence of engine operation.

We are not able, in an interpretation, to specify a particular means for maintaining suspension height for compliance testing in the absence of engine operation. However, the basic principle that should be followed in selecting a means for maintaining s uspension height is that it should not result in different test results than would occur if testing could be conducted with suspension height being maintained by engine operation,

i.e., what would happen in the real world. This should be relatively straightforward for section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 111, since the test is static. For a crash test, it is important that a vehicle not be altered in any way that would change the vehi cle's crash performance relevant to the aspect of performance being tested.

Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement

In asking about Standard No. 204, you stated the following:

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 vehicle 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 vehicle speed and steered wheels are positioned straight ahead.

You then asked whether Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 are correct. As discussed below, we agree that Standard No. 204's requirements need to be met only at the suspension height that occurs at a 30 mph vehicle speed and with steered wheels positioned straight ahead.

Standard No. 204 specifies requirements limiting the rearward displacement of the steering control into the passenger compartment to reduce the likelihood of chest, neck, or head injury. These requirements must be met in a 30 mile per hour perpendicular impact into a fixed collision barrier. While the standard specifies a number of test conditions, it does not specify suspension height.

Looking at the Standard No. 204 as a whole, we believe it is clear that NHTSA explicitly decided to limit the standard's evaluation of steering control rearward displacement to how vehicles perform in 30 mph perpendicular impacts, even though the require ments have relevance at lower and higher speeds. Therefore, we agree that the standard's requirements need to be met only at suspension heights that occur at a 30 mph vehicle speed and with steered wheels positioned straight ahead.

With respect to Mazda's question concerning means of maintaining intended suspension height for compliance testing, please see our discussion provided with respect to Standard No. 111.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection

In asking about Standard No. 208, you stated the following:

Section S8.1.1(d), "Vehicle test attitude," specifies the procedure for determining the vehicle test attitude that is to be used for testing. Specifically, 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 opening, 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 wil l 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 loaded 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" condi tion is quite clear. However, Mazda interprets the "fully loaded 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 likely have an "as delivered" height greater than the "full loaded" height. H owever, this fact is of no importance as S8.1.1(d) states that the 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 interp retation is that these criteria must be met with the vehicle's ignition in the "on" position only.

You then asked three questions, (1) whether Mazda's interpretation of the definition of the "fully loaded condition" is correct with respect to the condition of the ignition switch, (2) whether Mazda's interpretation of the irrelevance of the relative re lationship between the "as delivered" and "fully loaded" conditions is correct, and (3) whether Mazda's interpretation of the meaning of "between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude" is correct.

In addressing your questions, I will begin by noting that Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements which must be met in specified crash tests at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. While the standard specifies a number of tes t conditions, it does not specify suspension height. However, the standard does specify vehicle attitude, which is closely related to suspension height. In addressing how Standard No. 208 applies in the absence of a specification for vehicle height, th e relationship between the standard's attitude specification and vehicle height must be considered.

Section S8.1.1(d) specifies the attitude of the vehicle during testing, i.e., the angle of the vehicle relative to the ground. This test condition ensures that the vehicle is not overly tilted toward the front or back, or to one side. The section accom plishes this purpose by specifying that, during a compliance test, the height of the vehicle at each wheel is within a specified range. This range, which may be somewhat different for each wheel, is determined by looking at the vehicle in the "as delive red" condition and the "fully loaded" condition. A vehicle must meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 when its height at each wheel is

anywhere within the specified ranges.

On first glance, one might read section S8.1.1(d) to create a height requirement, since ranges of height are determined under that section (at each wheel). This would be incorrect, except in a very narrow sense, since Standard No. 208 does not specify, for vehicles with variable height suspension systems, what suspension height should be used in the two conditions ("as delivered" and "fully loaded") where the specified ranges of height are determined under section S8.1.1(d).

Looking at the Standard No. 208 as a whole, we believe it is clear that NHTSA explicitly decided to limit the standard's evaluation of occupant crash protection in frontal impacts to how vehicles perform in impacts of 30 mph or less, even though the requ irements also have relevance at higher speeds. It is our interpretation that the frontal crash test requirements need to be met at all suspension heights that can occur at speeds of 30 mph or less, with the vehicle operational. It is also our interpret ation that the crash test requirements need to be met only at suspension heights that can occur at the speed used in the crash test.

A remaining issue is how section S8.1.1(d) applies for vehicles with variable height suspension systems. As discussed below, vehicle attitude should be determined under this section using the actual suspension setting (or equivalent, if the setting is a utomatic) to be used in a crash test.

For purposes of illustration, I will assume a vehicle with two very different suspension height settings. It would not be appropriate to conclude that the ranges of height determined under section S8.1.1(d) should simultaneously cover both suspension he ights. Such ranges would be very large, and would not ensure that the vehicle is not overly tilted toward the front or back, or to one side. Moreover, such ranges would not be relevant to the real world, with respect to vehicle attitude.

Traditional vehicles can be viewed as having a single suspension "setting." This single suspension condition is used in determining vehicle attitude under section S5.8.8.1. The ranges of height result from the differences in loading under the "as deliv ered" and "fully loaded" conditions.

A single suspension "setting" (or equivalent, if the setting is automatic) should similarly be used in determining vehicle attitude for vehicles with variable height suspension systems. The "setting" should be the one to be used in a crash test.

With respect to Mazda's question concerning means of maintaining intended suspension height for compliance testing, please see our discussion provided with respect to Standard No. 111.

You also asked for an interpretation of section S8.2.7 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies additional 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." You stated that Mazda interprets the meaning of "normal attitude" to be that vehicle attitude which is intended

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. Standard No. 208 provides manufacturers the option of either equipping their vehicles with safety belts or meeti ng certain alternative requirements, including lateral moving barrier crash test requirements. These requirements are relevant at all vehicle heights that can occur during vehicle operation, regardless of speed. Moreover, NHTSA has not decided to limit the standard's evaluation of this aspect of safety performance to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds. It is our interpretation that the lateral moving barrier crash test requirements, if applicable, must be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational. "Normal attitude" is the attitude determined under section S8.1.1(d). As discussed above, attitude for vehicles equipped with variable height suspension systems is determined under section S8.1.1(d) using the ac tual suspension setting (or equivalent, if the setting is automatic) to be used in a crash test.

Standards No. 212, Windshield Mounting; No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion; No. 301, Fuel System Integrity

In asking about Standards No. 212, No. 219, and No. 301, you noted that NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation to Mazda about how these standards apply to adjustable height suspension systems. In a letter dated August 10, 1982, the agency address ed a vehicle equipped with a suspension system having two height positions, one for normal highway driving and another for off-road driving, which could be selected by the driver. NHTSA stated the following:

(Safety Standards No. 212, No. 219, and No. 301) do not specify a height adjustment because almost all vehicles have a single, set adjustment. . . After careful consideration, it is the agency's position that such a vehicle capable of variable height adj ustment would have to comply with the vehicle adjusted to any position that is possible. This is true because the vehicle could be driven on the highway, for example, even if it were adjusted to the off-road position. Consequently, it is important that the vehicle comply with the standards in all positions.

You noted that while suspension height could be adjusted by the driver for the system discussed in the agency's previous interpretation, the active suspension system you are currently considering would use an on-board electronic controller to select susp ension height, and suspension height would not be adjustable by the driver. Consequently, according to your letter, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehicle speed and loading condition as is the case with conve ntional suspension systems. You stated that 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 g iven the specified speed and loading conditions. You also stated that, using an "intended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of the three standards are to be met only when the vehicle's ignition is "on." You then asked whether thes e suggested interpretations are correct.

Standard No. 212 specifies windshield retention requirements that must be

met in a specified frontal crash test at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. Similarly, Standard No. 219 specifies windshield zone intrusion requirements that must be met in a specified frontal crash test at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. Standard No. 301 specifies fuel system integrity requirements for several specified crash tests. These include a frontal crash test similar to those in Standards No. 212 and No. 219. Requirements for this test must be met at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. Other tests include a rear moving barrier crash test, a lateral moving barrier crash test, and a static rollover test.

We agree that the requirements of Standards No. 212, No. 219, and No. 301 need not be met for vehicle heights that only occur when the engine is not on, since the requirements are only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating. Looking at th e three standards as a whole, we believe it is clear that, for the frontal tests specified by the three standards, NHTSA decided to limit the standards' evaluation of safety performance to how vehicles perform in impacts of 30 mph or less, even though th e requirements have relevance at higher speeds. It is our interpretation that the frontal crash test requirements specified by these standards need to be met at all suspension heights that can occur at speeds of 30 mph or less, with the vehicle operatio nal. It is also our interpretation that the crash test requirements need to be met only at suspension heights that can occur at the speed used in the crash test.

We reach a different conclusion for Standard No. 301's other crash test requirements. These requirements are relevant at all vehicle speeds and suspension heights. Moreover, NHTSA has not decided to limit the standard's evaluation of these aspects of s afety performance to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds. It is our interpretation that these crash test requirements must be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational.

Part 581 Bumper Standard

In asking about the Part 581 Bumper Standard, you noted that NHTSA has previously issued several interpretations of how the standard applies to vehicles with adjustable height suspension systems. In a letter to Subaru dated May 6, 1986, NHTSA stated the following:

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 criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted. There is no la nguage in the test requirements of the standard limiting their applicability to "the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position."

This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Bumper Standard, set forth in section 581.2, to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of a passenger motor vehicle from low speed collisions. If a vehicle's suspension could be adjust ed so that its bumper height resulted in bumper mismatch with other vehicles in the event of low speed collisions, the reduction in physical damage attributable to the Bumper Standard would be defeated in whole or part.

In another letter, dated February 12, 1985, NHTSA stated that a vehicle is "required to meet the pendulum test of Part 581 in any vehicle use scenario in which the vehicle operates, and the barrier test of Part 581 when the engine is idling."

You suggested, for the barrier test, that the agency's May 1986 interpretation may be inappropriate for your active suspension system, since your system provides for only one suspension height when the engine is idling. You also suggested, for the pendu lum test, that these interpretations seem to be in conflict with the Bumper Standard's stated purpose to reduce physical damage to motor vehicles in low speed collisions. We assume that you are referring to the fact that your suspension system has heigh ts that occur only at speeds greater than 35 mph. You then requested that NHTSA provide an interpretation of Part 581 with respect to your system.

In addressing how Part 581 applies to vehicles equipped with an active suspension system, I will address separately the standard's barrier and pendulum tests. For the barrier test, a vehicle must meet specified damage criteria after an impact into a fix ed barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, at 2.5 mph. Section 581.6 sets forth conditions applicable to bumper testing. Under section 581.6(c), at the onset of a barrier impact, the vehicle's engine is operating at idling s peed.

Looking at the Bumper Standard as a whole, we believe it is clear that NHTSA decided to limit the barrier test's evaluation of bumper performance to how vehicles perform in 2.5 mph frontal impacts, even though the requirements have relevance at lower and higher speeds and when the vehicle is nonoperational. It is our interpretation that the barrier test requirements specified by this standard need to be met at all suspension heights that can occur at 2.5 mph.

We reach a different conclusion for the pendulum test, which serves the purpose of creating a bumper height requirement. This requirement is relevant at all vehicle speeds and suspension heights, and when the vehicle is nonoperational. I note that whil e Mazda is correct that the Bumper Standard's stated purpose is to reduce physical damage to motor vehicles in low speed collisions, NHTSA has justified the bumper height requirement on safety concerns related to "higher speed collisions." In proposing Standard No. 215, the predecessor of Part 581, the agency stated:

. . . in higher speed collisions the tendency of a bumper to override another or to ride under or over a guardrail creates hazards for vehicle occupants. Vehicles with interlocking bumpers block traffic and expose their occupants to considerable danger, particularly if they attempt to get out to unlock bumpers. By overriding or underriding a guardrail, a bumper may strike a supporting post, or similar fixed object, with serious consequences for the vehicle and its occupants. 35 FR 17999, November 24, 1970.

The relevance of the bumper height requirement to nonoperational

situations is also clear, e.g., to help protect parked cars.

Moreover, NHTSA has not decided to limit the bumper height requirement to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds. It is our interpretation that the pendulum test requirements must be met at all suspension heights that can occur, regardless of ve hicle speed or whether the ignition is turned on.

This interpretation is consistent with an October 18, 1978 letter to Nissan, in which NHTSA addressed how the pendulum test applies to vehicles equipped with height control systems, including automatic height control systems. Among other things, the age ncy stated the following:

. . . There is no language in the pendulum test requirements of the standard which would limit their applicability to only the ignition-on or ignition-off situation or to the recommended driving position for normal roadways. The vehicle must be capable of meeting the pendulum test requirements at all stable bumper heights possible at unloaded vehicle weight.

Thus, in the situations described in Question 1 and 2 of your letter, in which an automatic height control system is employed, the vehicle must comply with the pendulum test requirements in both the ignition-on and ignition-off positions . . . .

I note that one of our past letters, a December 24, 1984 letter addressed to Porsche, appears to suggest that the pendulum test must be met in any setting in which the system operates "when the engine is idling." This might be read to suggest that the p endulum test need not be met when the vehicle is nonoperational. However, this interpretation cited section 581.6(c) in concluding that the engine is idling during Part 581 testing. Section 581.6(c) applies only to the barrier test and not the pendulum test. We therefore consider this interpretation to be incorrect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the analysis presented above.