ID: aiam3033

Dear Mr. Latshaw: RE: The Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier by Ennova, Inc. This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1979, to John Womack o this office on behalf of your client Ennova, Inc. Ennova wishes to market a 'back rack carrier', and you have asked several questions with respect to its legality under Federal requirements. The photographs which you enclosed show that the carrier structure is attached to both the front and rear bumpers, and that loads may be carried on the top of the vehicle as well as on a shelf directly behind the vehicle's rear bumper.; Your questions and our answers are: '1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned moto vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is preempted?; 2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining t roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?'; An equipment carrier that attaches to a motor vehicle is an item o 'motor vehicle equipment' as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), and your client is a 'manufacturer' as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that cover this type of motor vehicle equipment, and, therefore, a State is not preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) (sic) from prescribing its own safety standards for it. If a safety related defect were discovered in the 'Back Rack', Ennova would be responsible for notification and remedy of it, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1411 *et seq*.; '3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumper or fenders which the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any Federal standards?; The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in semipermanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? Is (sic) so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?; 4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rac (T.M.) Carrier present a problem?; 5. The structural supports of the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier obscure th vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?; 8. If the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier as it appears in the photograph were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment.'; Your questions concern our jurisdiction over a vehicle before and afte its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. A dealer has the responsiblity (sic) to deliver to its owner a new vehicle in full compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of any 'additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment ... that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.' Paragraph S4.3.1 requires that 'no part of the vehicle shall prevent a parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, turn signal lamp, or backup lamp from meeting its photometric output at any applicable group of test points specified in Figures 1 and 3 [Standard No. 108], or prevent any other lamp from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable 'SAE Standard on Recommended Practice'. Therefore, a dealer could not deliver a new car with the Back Rack installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the car's lamps or reflectors or impairs photometric output. After sale, a dealer (or distributor or manufacturer, but not the vehicle owner) has a responsibility under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2) (A) of not 'knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element design installed on ... a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' In the context of Standard No. 108 we have equated a rendering inoperative with impaired effectiveness or impaired photometrics so that the same consideration would apply, a dealer could not install the Back Rack on a used vehicle if it affects compliance with Standard No. 108.; The installation of the Back Rack appears to present some complianc problems. Based upon an informal review and the photographs you submitted, the front part of the carrier may reduce headlamp candlepower output below the required minimum at several test points, as for example, at test points HV, H-3R and 3L and H 9R and 9L on the upper beam, and at test points 1 1/2 D-2R, 1/2 D-1 1/2 R on the low beam.; Looking at the turn signals which are required to have an 8.0 squar inch minimum projected luminous area, the carrier support design may mask them to the extent that the direction of the turn signal might not be clearly understood. The carrier support location may not allow these lamps to provide an unobstructed effective projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, of at least 2 square inches, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. This requirement must also be met by the taillamps. Further with respect to the taillamps, with the carrier in place, they may not be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left and/or right, as Standard No. 108 requries (sic).; The design location of the carrier supports may reduce the minimu effective projected luminous area of the stop lamps below the 8 square inch minimum of Standard No. 108.; As for backup lamps, the visibility requirements are complex, those o SAE Standard J593c as modified by S4.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108, but in essence the lamps must be 'readily visible' to use your phrase.; These interpretations are based upon the photographs you supplied, an are meant to be illustrative as there are many different lighting configurations on vehicles, and we do not know that the Back Rack would affect compliance in all instances.; '7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?'; Dimensional requirements of headlights conform to SAE J571d *Dimensional Specifications of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units*, June 1966, parking lights, SAE J 222, *Parking Lamps (Position Lamps)* December 1970, direction lights (turn signals) SAE J588e *Turn Signal Lamps (Rear Position Light)*, August 1970. Copies of the foregoing SAE Standards are attached. In addition, the minima and maxima of lens visibility requirements for parking lamps, turn signal lamps and taillamps are set forth in these SAE Standards. The minimum and maximum photometric requirements of headlights are set forth in SAE J 579a, August 1965 and J 579c, December 1974, as well as the design parameters of rectangular headlamp units SAE J 1132, *Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles* (copies also attached).; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3903

Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 222, *School Bus Seating and Crash Protection*. You asked whether a single, full width, 90 inch seat may be placed at the last row of the school bus and be designated as a four passenger seat. In telephone calls with Ms. Hom of my staff, you stated that these school buses have a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. Further, the next to last row of seats has two 39 inch, three passenger seats, on the left and right of the aisle.; I would like to separate your question into two parts. The first par deals with designating the full width seat as a four passenger seat even though, under S4.1 of Standard No. 222, the number of seating positions is six. The second part concerns the restraining barrier requirement of Standard No. 222.; We believe that designating a 90 inch, full width seat as a fou passenger seat would not comply with FMVSS No. 222. Paragraph S4.1 of the standard states that:; >>>The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat i expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.<<<; Thus, under S4.1, the number of seating positions on a 90 inch widt seat is six. Labeling a 90 inch width seat as a four passenger seat amounts to a disclaimer by the manufacturer that two seating positions are not to be used. This practice is prohibited since, despite the disclaimer, it is likely that passengers will use all six seating positions and, thus, each position should provide the level of occupant protection required by our standard. A manufacturer cannot escape its occupant protection responsibilities associated with a designated seating position simply by disclaiming that position.; The second part of your question deals with designating the 90 inc seat as a six passenger seat and the requirement in Standard No. 222 for restraining barriers. Standard No. 222 requires a restraining barrier of specified size in front of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point (SRP). From the information in your letter, we have determined that at least one of the designated seating positions in the center portion of the last row would not have the rear surface of another passenger seat within 24 inches of its SRP. A restraining barrier would have to be placed in front of these designated seating positions, and would block the center aisle. Such a barrier would obstruct access to the emergency exits.; FMVSS No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, regulates th number, size, and operation of school bus emergency exits. Paragraph S2 states that one of the purposes of Standard No. 217 is 'to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress.' Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires each school bus to be equipped with either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear window. Paragraphs S5.2.3.1 and S5.4 require unobstructed passage through these exits from the interior of the bus. If there is unobstructed access, as required by paragraphs S5.2.3.1 and S5.4, with the restraining barrier in place, then the buses you describe would not violate that requirement. However, even if the barrier and other aspects of the bus design would not violate the requirement, we would urge that the manufacturers of such buses ensure that the design not complicate efforts of the passengers to reach and use the emergency exits.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: gehman

Mr. Roland P. Gehman, P.E.
President
MGS, Inc.
178 Muddy Creek Church Road
Denver, PA 17517-9386

Dear Mr. Gehman:

This responds to your letter and telephone call requesting an interpretation of whether two flatbed trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. I regret the delay in responding.

Specifically, you ask whether the TM500 and TM600 trailer designs, which each have full width cross-members above the chassis frame rails at a height of 26 inches above the ground, would be excluded from the standard. Our answer is yes, for reasons relating to the gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of the trailers. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, applies to trailers and semitrailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms or more (10,000 pounds (lb) or more). The literature you enclosed with your letter states that "[t]he MGS TM 600 can carry loads up to 10,000 lbs., and the MGS TM500 up to 7,000 lbs." Standard No. 224 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR of less than 10,000 lb.

I understand that in a June 17, 1999, telephone conversation with my staff, you had asked about the application of the standard to your trailers and also clarified drawings you had enclosed. (Mr. Atelsek, with whom you had spoken, has since left our office.) We assume that you ask about MGS trailers with GVWRs of 10,000 lb or more.

You explained that the TM500 and TM600 trailers have identical configurations at the rear. The drawing shows frame rails, constructed of longitudinal I-beams, whose lower surface is 18 inches above the ground. There is nothing between the frame rails. Above the frame rail at the rear is a full-width cross member at the back of the rear deck whose bottom is 26 inches above the ground. You asked Mr. Atelsek if these trailers are considered "low chassis vehicles" under Standard No. 224.

The answer is no. A "low chassis vehicle" is defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." S5.1.2 states that "[t]he vertical distance between the bottom edge of the horizontal member of the guard and the ground shall not exceed 560 mm at any point across the full width of the member."

In its current configuration, neither of your trailers meet the definition of a low chassis vehicle. The trailers have no horizontal cross member at the rear lower than 26 inches. Thus, they do not meet the 22 inch maximum height configuration requirement in S5.1.2.

In the event that your trailers are not low chassis vehicles, you asked Mr. Atelsek whether a horizontal cross member attached to the rear of the frame rails would produce a vehicle configuration that meets the definition of a low chassis vehicle. An 18-inch high horizontal member would meet the 22-inch maximum height configuration requirement in S5.1.2. However, the definition also specifies that the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. So the question becomes whether the cross member would be considered to be part of the chassis of the vehicle.

"Chassis" is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure." To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit. To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer.

One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. The agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load.

Applying these principles to your contemplated cross member, we conclude that it would be part of the chassis. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the extension of the cross member to the bottom of the frame rails would be of the same material, thickness, etc., of the existing cross member. If this assumption is correct, we would consider such a cross member to be an integral part of the frame structure that contributes to supporting load. Therefore, the modified cross member, with its lower edge located 18 inches above the ground, would be considered part of the chassis. Since a part of the chassis would meet all the configurational requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.3, the trailer would then meet the definition of a low chassis vehicle, and would be excluded from Standard No. 224.

If you have any further questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:224
d.9/27/99

ID: aiam0891

Dear Mr. Louis: This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1972, concerning th seat adjustment procedures of S8.1.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.; As described in your letter, some models manufactured by Renault hav front seats that can be adjusted to an extreme forward position to allow the reclining seat back to be fully lowered. You imply that this position cannot be used for driving the vehicle, and ask whether the 'forwardmost' position referred to in S8.1.2 could be interpreted to be the forwardmost *driving* position.; The purpose of S8.1.2 is to specify an adjustment position that i appropriate for the 50th percentile adult male occupant used in the standard's barrier tests. If the adjustment range is determined by using the extreme forward position you describe, the midway point would no longer be appropriate for the 50th percentile adult male size. It is therefore consistent with the purpose of S8.1.2 to exclude the extreme, non-driving positions in determining the midway adjustment position.; However, despite the references in some parts of the standard to a occupant of the 5th percentile adult female size, the adjustment range specified in S8.1.2 does not refer to this or any other size of occupant and we are of the opinion that no occupant size specification can be read into the section.; We would consider a position to be outside the range used to determin the midway point of S8.1.2 if it cannot reasonably be used for driving and if it is separated from other positions by a distance greater than the normal distance between positions. It would appear that the position described in your letter meets these criteria and that it should therefore be excluded in determining the midway position under S8.1.2.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-3.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 7, 1989

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

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

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

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

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: aiam3493

Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio regarding Safety Standard No. 207 as it would apply to a new seat design your company is considering. This design includes additional seat track forward of the seat track positions that are included as normal riding positions. Since there are no locking positions on this additional seat track, the vehicle seat cannot comply with the loading requirements of Standard No. 207 when in this position. Those requirements must be satisfied in any position to which a seat can be adjusted. You ask whether the extended track would be considered part of the seat track for purposes of Standard No. 207 and for purposes of the adjustment requirements in testing under Safety Standard No. 208.; The answer to your question is yes unless some mechanism is include which will automatically return the seat to a locked position on the track when the seat back is in its upright position and no force is being applied. Most motor vehicle seats will travel some short distance forward of the forward-most adjustment locking position. However, they are designed to return to the nearest locked adjustment position when the adjusting force is removed from the seat, i.e., when the occupant releases the adjustment lever and stops pushing the seat forward. Many seat designs accomplish this result by spring- loading the seat. Therefore, the seat track portion labeled 'A- B' in your diagram would not be considered part of the seat track for purposes of Safety Standard No. 207 and Standard No. 208 if the seat is designed to return automatically to position 'B' and lock when the seat back is in its upright riding position.; None of the other alternative solutions you mentioned would b sufficient. All of the alternatives fail to prevent the seat with its seat back in the upright position from being adjusted to a position on the 'A-B' portion of the track, all of which are unlocked positions. With one limited exception, none of the alternatives would aid the seat in meeting the forward and rearward loading requirements when the seat is adjusted somewhere on the 'A-B' portion of the track. The exception concerns the alternative of strengthening the stopper at the 'A' position. This alternative might enable the seat to meet the forward loading requirements of Standard No. 207, but only when the seat was adjusted to the 'A' position on the 'A-B' portion of the track. The seat would not be able to meet the aft loading requirements at the 'A' position, however.; I would like to point out that the agency does not provide advanc approval of any device or element of design in a motor vehicle. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act makes the vehicle manufacturer responsible for determining whether its vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and for certifying that compliance. This letter only represents the agency's informal opinion based on its understanding of the information supplied in your letter.; Also, if you desire to have the information concerning this seat desig treated as confidential business information by the agency, you will have to submit sufficient information to justify such treatment. I am enclosing proposed guidelines for seeking confidential treatment. If you do not choose to follow this procedure, we will have to place this interpretation in our public redbook file for the benefit of all interested persons.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4969

Dear Mr. Alexander: This responds to your letter of February 18, 199 requesting confirmation 'that forward-facing wheelchairs on school buses do not need a crash barrier located forward of each wheelchair position.' As explained below, your understanding is correct. Section S5.2 of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires 'a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point.' Under S5.2.1, the rear surface of the restraining barrier must be within a distance of 24 inches or less from the seating reference point. Standard No. 222's requirement for a restraining barrier does not apply to wheelchair positions. First, a wheelchair position is not technically a 'designated seating position,' as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Second, Standard No. 222's seating requirements apply only to 'school bus passenger seats.' See S1 of Standard No. 222. The term 'school bus passenger seat' is defined in S4 as 'a seat in a school bus, other than the driver's seat or a seat installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers.' I would also note that installing a crash barrier forward of a wheelchair securement location in compliance with S5.2.1 would appear to be impractical. First, the seating reference point could move depending on the type of wheelchair secured at the location. Second, many wheelchairs would not fit behind a restraining barrier complying with S5.2.1 as some are longer than 24 inches forward of the seating reference point. While the current requirements of Standard No. 222 do not have any requirements for wheelchair securement locations, NHTSA is concerned about providing crash protection for all students on school buses. NHTSA has recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning requirements for wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems on school buses. The notice proposed amending Standard No. 222 to include minimum strength and location requirements for the anchorages for securement and restraint devices and minimum strength requirements for the securement and restraint devices themselves. This notice did not, however, propose to require a restraining barrier forward of wheelchair securement locations. I am enclosing a copy of the notice for your information. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: aiam3880

Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter of November 26, 1984, requesting severa interpretations of Standard Nos. 201, 208, and 210. The answers to your questions raised in Attachments I, II, and III of your letter are discussed below.; In attachment I of your letter, you asked about the requirement o S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201. You were specifically concerned about the language which provides that the length of the armrest is to be measured vertically in side elevation. You provided a drawing of an armrest and asked if the length is to be measured as shown in section (dimension) b of your Figure 1.; The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that there is at last inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. For this requirement to be meaningful, the covered surface must be contactable by the vehicle occupant. The vehicle occupant would not contact the base of the arm rest illustrated in your drawing. Therefore, the measurement should be made at dimension a in section A-A or dimension c in section B-B as shown in your Figure 1.; On question one of Attachment II, you asked about the application o Standard Nos. 208 and 209 to a safety belt system you are developing to meet S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. The system consists of a two point automatic belt and a Type 1 manual safety belt. You asked which requirements of Standard No. 209 apply to such an automatic belt. I have enclosed an interpretation letter of August 7, 1981 to Volkswagen which explains the application of Standard No. 209 to an automatic belt.; In question two of Attachment II, you state that your vehicle will hav four anchorages for each front outboard seating position (two anchorages for the automatic belt and two for the Type 1 seat belt assembly). You said that S4.4.1 of Standard No. 210 requires seat belt anchorages for Type 2 safety belts at each front outboard seating position and you asked what is meant by anchorages for a Type 2 belt. You also asked whether you must install any other anchorages at those positions in your vehicle.; Paragraph S4.1.1. of Standard No. 210 requires anchorages for a Type seat belt assembly to be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars. This is true regardless of whether the seating position is equipped with an air bag and a lap belt, with a single diagonal automatic belt or with any other system. Safety Standard No. 210 is independent of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. A Type 2 belt requires three anchorages (two for the lap portion of the belt and one for the upper torso restraint). The presence of the Type 2 anchorages in vehicles will allow vehicle owners to install easily Type 2 belts at their own initiative if they desire to do so for whatever reason. For example, if a single diagonal automatic belt system has been damaged, an owner may wish to replace it with a Type 2 manual belt system.; Under paragraph S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages fo automatic belts are exempted from the location requirements of the standard. This exception was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs to determine the optimum anchorage locations in terms of both effectiveness and comfort (43 FR 53440, Nov. 16, 1978). If, however, anchorage points for an automatic belt do not fall within the location specified in the standard for Type 2 belts, the manufacturer would have to provide additional anchorage points that could be used by a properly located Type 2 manual belt. Thus if your lap belt and upper torso anchorages fall within the location requirements for Type II belts, you would not have to provide any additional anchorages.; In question three of Attachment II, you asked what strength tes applies to anchorages used with an automatic belt and to the manual lap belt used in your system. You illustrated the test procedures you plan to use in your Figure 3. As explained below, the procedure shown in Figure 3(1) is correct and the procedure shown in Figure 3(2) is partially correct.; The agency has stated in an interpretation letter of July 23, 1980 t Mazda that the anchorages for a single diagonal automatic belt should be tested with a 3,000-pound force for purposes of Standard No. 210, in accordance with the test procedures of paragraph S5.2. This is the same force that is required for testing the upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt system. This force requirement is applicable whether the single diagonal automatic belt is used alone or whether it is used in conjunction with a manual lap belt. The anchorages for the manual lap belt, however, would be required to withstand test forces of 5,000 pounds under paragraph S4.2.1 for Standard No. 210. The anchorages for the manual lap belt and for the automatic belt must separately meet their respective force requirements and would not have to be tested simultaneously since they are separate systems.; In question one of the Attachment III, you requested the agency t clarify the words 'fold' and 'tumble' used in S7.4.6 of Standard No. 208. You stated your understanding that 'fold' means to move the seat back forward as shown in your Figure 4-a and 'tumble' means to move both the seat cushion and seat back forward as shown in your Figure 4-b. Your understanding of both words is correct.; In question two of Attachment III, you asked the meaning of the wor 'receptacle' as used in paragraph S7.4.6.2 of Standard No. 208. The word 'receptacle' refers to the devices into which an occupant would insert the tang of a safety belt to fasten the belt.; I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0345

Dear Mr. Taylor:#This is in reply to your petition of March 12, 1971 for amendment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Control Location, Identification, and Illumination*.#You petitioned that the abbreviation for the defroster control identification be changed from 'DEF' to 'DEFR.' In the preamble to the reconsideration and amendment of Standard No. 101, (36 F.R. 8269, May 4, 1971), a copy of which I enclose, this agency noted that additional identifying words or symbols are permissible if they do not conflict with the required or permissible words and symbols set out in Standard No. 101. In our opinion your use of 'DEFR' would create no conflict.#You also petitioned that certain controls located below the drivers H point and available to all passengers be exempted from the control identification illumination requirement. The recent amendment to Standard No. 101 no longer required illumination of all heating and air conditioning controls, but only those that direct air directly upon the windshield. We believe this may be responsive to your petition.#Finally, you asked that we define our position on bilingual control identification. Identification in a language other than English is permissible, in the language of the preamble to the recent amendment, 'as long as the additional words . . . do not conflict with the required words . . .'#We hope this answers your questions.#Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam0344

Dear Mr. Taylor:#This is in reply to your petition of March 12, 1971 for amendment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Control Location, Identification, and Illumination*.#You petitioned that the abbreviation for the defroster control identification be changed from 'DEF' to 'DEFR.' In the preamble to the reconsideration and amendment of Standard No. 101, (36 F.R. 8269, May 4, 1971), a copy of which I enclose, this agency noted that additional identifying words or symbols are permissible if they do not conflict with the required or permissible words and symbols set out in Standard No. 101. In our opinion your use of 'DEFR' would create no conflict.#You also petitioned that certain controls located below the drivers H point and available to all passengers be exempted from the control identification illumination requirement. The recent amendment to Standard No. 101 no longer required illumination of all heating and air conditioning controls, but only those that direct air directly upon the windshield. We believe this may be responsive to your petition.#Finally, you asked that we define our position on bilingual control identification. Identification in a language other than English is permissible, in the language of the preamble to the recent amendment, 'as long as the additional words . . . do not conflict with the required words . . .'#We hope this answers your questions.#Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs;