ID: 16437-1.pja

Mr. James Jacobsen
Reinke Manufacturing Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 566
Dreshler, NE 68340

Dear Mr. Jacobsen:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether a proposed trailer configuration would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. Your proposed design is a flatbed trailer with a piece of four inch square steel tubing welded to the bottom of the chassis I-beam flanges. Without the tubing, the bottom of the flange would be 25 inches above ground level. With the flange, the bottom of the flange would be 21 inches off the ground. You state that the piece of tubing would meet the dimensional requirements of the rule. You ask if NHTSA would consider the tube to be a part of the chassis and, if so, whether the vehicle would be excluded from our regulations as a low chassis vehicle. As explained below, this proposed trailer design would not be excluded as a low chassis vehicle, and a compliant underride guard would need to be provided.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded category that is relevant for the purposes of this letter is low chassis vehicles.

Low chassis vehicles are 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." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. The only part of your vehicle that may meet these configuration requirements is the piece of steel tubing welded to the bottom of the frame rail flanges, so the question becomes whether the tubing is 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. Moveable components may "lock" into the frame structure sufficiently that they are integral with other frame members-in this situation NHTSA may consider the combined components to be one frame unit. However, 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 welded-on piece of steel tubing, the agency concludes that it is not part of the chassis. The tubing does not meet the "load supporting" aspect of the chassis definition because it does not contribute to supporting cargo load. The tubing is also not part of the frame structure of the trailer. It does not define the outline, but projects down from beneath the frame structure. It is not locked into the structure strongly enough to be considered as one unit with a frame structural component. In consideration of these factors, we conclude that the approach plate is not part of the frame structure. NHTSA considers the tubing to be an attachment. Therefore, the proposed trailer design would not be considered a low chassis vehicle, and it would have to have a compliant underride guard attached.

We note, however, that the tubing already appears to fulfill the configurational requirements of a horizontal member of an underride guard. You would only need to assure that it meets the strength and energy absorption requirements in Standard No. 223 to be able to certify this vehicle design to our underride guard requirements.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:224

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.

ID: aiam5312

"Dear Mr. Carver: This responds to your letter of January 8, 1994 asking two questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follow. 1. There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the 'Daylight Opening' and 'Unobstructed Opening' as it applies to the new side emergency door specification in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which 'Daylight Opening' and 'Unobstructed Opening' are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the '30 cm minimum' shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the 'Unobstructed Opening' area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the 'Unobstructed Opening' area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4. The term 'daylight opening' is defined in the Final Rule as 'the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.' An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the 'maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit,' we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. Your question specifically concerns how the 'maximum unobstructed opening' of a side door is measured when the opening is partially obstructed by a seat. In the case of the illustrated door exit, occupants would use the exit by movement along the floor. This would be considered in determining the extent of an obstruction. None of the four examples you enclosed with your letter correctly illustrates the area that would be credited for the illustrated exit. The following regions would not be credited for this exit: (1) the area visually obstructed by the seat, (2) your region A2, an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the door opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat, (3) your region A5, an area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edge of the door forward of the seat, and (4) your region A8, an area bounded by the seat leg, the floor, the lower edge of the seat bottom, and the edge of the door forward of the seat. Because the seat would make the last three regions unusable as exit space for a person traveling along the floor of the bus towards the exit, they would not be credited for that exit. You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993 (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all types of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice. 2. Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a): 'Each school bus ....shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit' as appropriate, .... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus.' I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit' can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use this sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e., FMVSS 302)? The answer to your question is yes. The agency addressed this issue in an October 2, 1978, letter to Mr. E.M. Ryan of Ward Industries, Inc. I am enclosing a copy of this letter. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 03076Dashney_type1_positioningbelt

Mr. Howard Dashney
Executive Director
Michigan Association for Pupil Transportation
6250 W. Michigan Avenue
Lansing, MI 48915

Dear Mr. Dashney:

This responds to your December 19, 2002, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and subsequent phone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, concerning the application of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the installation of "positioning belts" on large (over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating) school buses. You inquire on behalf of the Michigan Association for Pupil Transportation (MAPT), which represents various school bus fleet administrators, including public and private school bus fleets, private contractors, and Head Start fleet operators.

You explained that MAPT members have been informed by the Michigan Department of State Police, Motor Carrier Division (MCD), that they will no longer be able to use positioning belts in their school buses. You explain that positioning belts are used to hold special-needs students upright in their seats when they cannot remain upright on their own, and/or to control the movement of students with behavioral problems. You state that the belts are attached to the seat frames or seat backs of the school bus seats and "are not meant for or used as protection in a crash." You further explain that MCD inspectors have prohibited the use of the belts because they believe that the belts do not comply with Federal standards. You ask two questions regarding this situation.

I note that we have also received a related inquiry from Sgt. Sharron Vancampen of the MCD, asking about use of the positioning devices on school buses. Because your letters ask about the same situation, we will respond to you both simultaneously and will copy you both on our responses.

First, you ask whether large school buses must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that apply to buses. The answer is yes. Under our definitions of motor vehicles (49 CFR 571.3) a "school bus" is a type of "bus." Thus, a school bus must meet all FMVSSs applying to "school buses" and those applying to "buses." Second, you ask if the MCD is correct in its interpretation of our standards.^[1]

Based on the information you provided in your letter and on the phone, generally speaking, few NHTSA requirements apply to the situation presented. We assume that the positioning belts are being installed on used (not new) buses by MAPT members.

The installation of the belts is not in itself a violation of NHTSA requirements. According to the information you provided, the belts presumably meet all applicable requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for seat belt assemblies, FMVSS No. 209. Thus, the sale of these belts to your members did not violate Federal requirements.

The belts are being used to restrain and/or position children, some of whom weigh 50 pounds or less. As such, there is an issue as to whether the belts are "child restraint systems" subject to FMVSS No. 213. We believe the answer is no, because the belts are Type 1 seat belt assemblies (i.e., lap belts), and Type 1 seat belts are excluded from the definition of "child restraint system" in S4 of FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.

Your members installation of the positioning belts is not directly regulated by an FMVSS. Safety standards that apply to installation of seat belts, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, are "vehicle standards" applying only to new vehicles. The general rule is that installation of aftermarket equipment is not subject to the requirements set forth in vehicle standards.

However, there is another statutory provision that might affect MAPT members installation of the belts. If a vehicle is modified after its first sale, 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides, in pertinent part:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

School buses are certified as meeting Federal school bus safety standards. Seats on a large school bus are certified to the "compartmentalization" requirements of FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The compartmentalization concept calls for sturdy yet yielding well-padded high-backed seats to protect passengers. With respect to Standard No. 222, the compartmentalized school bus seats are elements of design installed in compliance with this safety standard. The "make inoperative" prohibition requires any entity listed in 30122 to ensure that the school buses will continue to afford the occupant protection required by Standard No. 222, even with the positioning belts attached to them.

Note, however, that the make inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply to a situation where MAPT members installed the belts in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. Nonetheless, NHTSA urges owners to exercise care in modifying their vehicles so as not to degrade the safety provided by the original systems. Further, States have the authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles, including the manner in which school buses are modified and operated.

Note also that, notwithstanding your intent in using the belts only as "positioning belts," as a practical matter the belts could act similarly to "lap belts" in a crash. NHTSA recommends that lap belts be installed only on "seat belt ready" school bus seats (seats that are able to withstand the forces generated in a crash), and also in a manner that meets FMVSS No. 210.

To summarize, the sale of the seat belts to MAPT members did not violate the FMVSSs. The installation of the belts on the school bus seats by the MAPT members was not subject to an FMVSS, if the members modified their own vehicles. If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business modified the vehicle, the modifier must be sure not to make inoperative any part of the school bus seat installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 222 or any other Federal safety standard. We recommend that lap belts be properly installed on "seat belt ready" seats on school buses.

Please contact Deirdre Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#209#213
d.4/9/03

ID: aiam2819

Dear Mr. DuMond: This responds to your April 4, 1978, letter asking several question concerning the applicability of the Federal school bus safety standards to your vehicles.; First you ask whether a driver is considered a passenger fo computation of designated seating positions and whether he is included in the computation of vehicle capacity. The term 'passenger' is not used in the definition of designated seating position in Part 571.3 of our regulations. Designated seating position uses the term 'person' in its definition, and a driver is considered a person for both the computation of designated seating positions and vehicle capacity.; On a related point concerning designated seating positions, you as whether wheelchairs are considered designated seating positions or auxiliary seats. Wheelchair seating positions are not designated seating positions and, therefore, are not required to comply with standards that apply to designated seating positions. However, wheelchair positions are counted in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of the type classification of a vehicle.; In your second question, you ask what is the proper vehicl classification for a standard design school bus that carries fewer than 10 persons. This type of vehicle would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. As a multipurpose passenger vehicle, all fixed seating positions would be required to have seat belts. Wheelchair positions, since they are not designated seating positions, are not required to have seat belts.; In a question pertaining to the above-mentioned vehicle type, you as whether it can be classified as a school bus if it complies with all of the school bus safety standards. The answer to your question is no. This vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle. As a multipurpose passenger vehicle it must be certified in compliance with all of the standard applicable to that vehicle type. You are not prohibited from marking the vehicle as a school bus, however, with school bus paint, lighting, and lettering. Such markings do not change the vehicle type from multipurpose passenger vehicle to school bus.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4364

Dear Mr. Wort: This responds to your May 26, 1987, letter to me asking about ou requirements in Standard 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection,* for restraining barriers and seat back height. I appreciate this opportunity to explain our requirements. In this discussion, I would also like to go over preemption issues that are raised by the state law you describe.; In your letter, you said that Illinois has recently enacted a la requiring 28-inch-high seat backs on new large school buses (i.e., buses with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds). You ask whether the 28-inch-high seat backs would negate the requirement for a restraining barrier in front of the front passenger seat. the answer is no.; Paragraph S5.2 of Standard 222 specifies: 'Each vehicle shall b equipped with 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 . . . .' The standard makes no exception for any type of school bus passenger seat. The reason for the broad application is clear, since restraining barriers are needed to compartmentalize the seating area.; Your second question was whether the height of the restraining barrie must be as high as the height of the extended seat back. The answer is no. The requirements for restraining barrier surface area are found in paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 222. That section states: 'in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lie outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required.' The seat back of the seat for which a restraining barrier is required has dimensions specified in S5.1.2 of the standard. A restraining barrier must therefore only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2. If a seat back surface exceeds the size required in Standard 222, the size of the restraining barrier need not coincide. The preemption issue you raise related to the Illinois law mandating the 28-inch-high seat backs and FMVSS 222's seat back height requirement. I have enclosed a copy of our recent letter to Mr. Melvin Smith of your Department which explains that the Illinois law for 28-inch high seat backs is preempted by Federal law. However, as discussed in our letter, the State may require the high seat backs for public school buses.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5040

"Dear Mr. Dick: This responds to your letter concerning Standard No 213, 'Child Restraint Systems,' and the Sit'n'Stroll child restraint system you manufacture. The restraint is designed to be rear-facing for children weighing up to 25 pounds. Your letter relates to our April 22, 1992 interpretation to Mr. Mark Sedlack regarding rear-facing restraints for children weighing up to 25 pounds. In that letter, I stated that under Standard No. 213, such a restraint could be tested with either the six-month-old or the three-year-old dummy in the agency's compliance tests. I further stated that the restraint must physically permit the dummies to be positioned in accordance with the procedures in S6.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 213. If the restraint cannot permit the dummies to be so positioned, the restraint cannot be recommended for children weighing more than 20 pounds. You ask whether we would consider the Sit'n'Stroll as permitting the proper positioning of the three-year-old dummy. The photographs enclosed with your letter show the dummy in the restraint with its legs at a right angle to the torso. The backs of the dummy's heels rest on the standard seat assembly's seat back, about five inches below the top of the seat back. At the outset, I must note that NHTSA cannot provide you with an unqualified answer on whether your restraint accommodates the three-year-old dummy, because we do not know the details of your design. However, we can offer general guidance on the positioning of the dummy's legs, an aspect of the dummy's positioning that is of particular concern to you. S6.1.2.3.1(b) and (d) of Standard No. 213 specify the procedure for positioning the three-year-old dummy's legs in the child restraint. S6.1.2.3.1(b) states: '... Extend the legs of the dummy as far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet perpendicular to the centerline of the lower legs.' S6.1.2.3.1(d) states: '... R otate each dummy limb downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child restraint system or the standard seat .... Position the limbs, if necessary, so that limb placement does not inhibit torso or head movement in the standard's dynamic tests....' Based on the photographs you enclosed, the Sit'n'Stroll permits the dummy's legs to be positioned as specified in S6.1.2.3.1(b). That is, the legs are extended 'as far as possible' in the forward horizontal direction. The standard does not specify whether 'forward' is relative to the standard seat assembly or to the child. However, interpreting 'forward' as relative to the seat assembly would have the effect of disallowing the use of the three-year- old dummy to test a rear-facing restraint, since the positioning procedures would be inappropriate for the restraint. In the absence of language in the standard to that effect, we are disinclined to so conclude. Instead, we conclude 'forward' as used in S6.1.2.3.1(b) is relative to the child. Although the Sit'n'Stroll permits the legs to be positioned in accordance with S6.1.2.3.1(b), under S6.1.2.3.1(d) the leg placement must not inhibit torso or head movement during the dynamic tests of the standard. It does not appear that the dummy's legs would inhibit torso or head movement due to the forward (relative to the seat assembly) movement of the torso and head in the dynamic tests. However, we cannot make a definite determination based on the information in your letter. Please note that it is likely that NHTSA will propose amending Standard No. 213 such that a child restraint designed for use with children weighing up to 25 pounds would be tested with a new array of child test dummies, such as the 9- month-old dummy described in subpart J of our regulations (49 CFR Part 572). It is possible that a future amendment to the standard could specify that a new dummy, such as the 9-month-old, will be used instead of the 3-year-old dummy to test such a child restraint. NHTSA has announced its intention to consider rulemaking on incorporating new dummies, including the 9-month-old, in Standard No. 213 compliance tests. This intention was discussed at length in NHTSA's 'Planning Document on Potential Standard 213 Upgrade,' July 1991. I also would like to note our concern with the ability of your restraint to meet Standard No. 213's occupant excursion requirement (S5.1.3.2). S5.1.3.2 states: 'In the case of each rear-facing child restraint system, in a dynamic test ... no portion of the target point on either side of the dummy's head shall pass through the transverse orthogonal planes whose intersection contains, the forward-most and top-most points on the child restraint system surfaces ....' It appears from your photograph that the restraint's seat back might be too low to enable the restraint to meet S5.1.3.2 in a dynamic test. One means of avoiding any potential compliance problem with the excursion requirement would be for your company to raise the height of the seat back on this child restraint system. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht87-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator Technical Administration Department 1. Diahatsu-cho, Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your question concerning Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. A response to your question concerning Standard No. 219 was sent to you earlier, and we expect to respond to your question concerning Standard No. 201 shortly.

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"National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You asked whether Standard No. 101's illumination requirements apply to controls and displays not otherwise regulated by the standard. You quoted section S5.3.3's requirements for the light intensities of informational readout systems and asked whether t hose requirements apply to the following such items: digital clock using liquid crystals; radio employed digital frequency indicator using liquid crystals; and miscellaneous illuminations for conventional analog clock, cigar lighter, ashtray, and radio c ontrol switches, etc., which are lighted only when the headlights or parking lights are activated.

I would like to note that Standard No. 101's requirements for light intensities were amended in a final rule published in the Federal Register (52 FR 3244) on February 3, 1987. An effective date of March 5, 1987, was adopted for most of the amendments. S ubsequently, in response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA amended 49 CFR Part 511 to permit compliance with either the earlier version of the standard, reissued as Standard No. 100, or the amended standard until September 1, 1989. 52 FR 7150, Marc h 9, 1987. I have enclosed copies of those notices for your convenience.

In answering your question, I will separately discuss the requirements for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, and vehicles manufactured before that date.

Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989

Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, must meet the requirements of the current version of Standard No. 101. Section S5.3.5 provides:

S5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the driver's forward field of view which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, must have either a variable intensity, a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or a means of being turned off. This requirement shall not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment i lluminated.

As noted in your letter, the items you listed are not among the controls and displays generally regulated by Standard No. 101. However, if sources of illumination for those items are within the driver's forward field of view and are capable of being illu minated while the vehicle is in motion, they must meet the requirements of section S5.3.5.

Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989

Standard No. 100, i.e., the earlier version of Standard No. 101, applies only to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989. The application sections of Standards Nos. 100 and 101 make it clear that manufacturers have the option of meeting the requir ements of either standard for any control, display or illumination until September 1, 1989. Also, the application section of Standard No. 101 provides that if no requirements are specified in Standard No. 100 for a control, display, or illumination, none need be met as a result of Standard No. 101 for motor vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989.

Section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 100 provides:

Light intensities for controls, gauges, and their identification shall be continuously variable from: (a) A position at which either there is no light emitted or the light is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditio ns to (b) a position providing illumination sufficient for the driver to identify the control or display readily under conditions of reduced visibility. Light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for nighttime conditions. The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph. (Emphasis added.) In considering manufacturer options under Standards No. 100 and 101, for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989, the following points should be noted:

(1) Some illuminations covered by the highlighted language of Standard No. 100 are not covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. An example is a control located in the rear seating area that is illuminated only when the headlights are activated. Sin ce a manufacturer may meet the requirements of either Standard No. 100 or Standard No. 101 for any illumination and no requirement is specified for such illuminations in Standard No. 101, no requirement need be met for such illuminations.

(2) Some illuminations not covered by the highlighted language of Standard No. 100 are covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. An example is a clock, located in the driver's forward field of view, which is always illuminated as a result of utilizi ng light emitting diodes. No requirement need be met for such illuminations (for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989).

(3) Some illuminations covered by the highlighted language of Standard No. 100 are also covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. For these illuminations, the requirements of section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101 are more flexible. While the highlighte d language of Standard No. 100 provides that such illuminations must, depending on the illumination, be either continuously variable or have at least two values, one for day and one for night, section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101 provides three options for all such illuminations. Such illuminations must have either a variable intensity, i.e., at least two levels of intensity; a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions; or a means of being t urned off.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Dec. 24 , 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully inquire NHTSA's interpretations with regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 101, 201, and 219.

We wish we could have your early and kind response to the questions on the following pages.

We thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

H.Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office

Enclosure : QUESTIONNAIRE (1),(2),(3) cc: Mr. R. Busick, Olson Engineering Inc.

QUESTIONNAIRE (1)

FMVSS No. 101 ; Controls and Displays

Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 101 provides that;

"Light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for night time conditions. The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the h eadlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph."

However the applicable items(illuminations) of the above provision are not necessarily definitely for us.

We believe that these provisions are applied only to the illuminations for the controls or gauges which are somehow regulated otherwise in FMVSS No. 101, and are not applied to the illuminations which are optionally equipped and are not otherwise mention ed in the standard, such as following illuminations in concrete;

(1) Digital clock using liquid crystals (2) Radio employed digital frequency indicator using liquid crystals

(3) Miscellaneous illuminations for conventional analog clock, cigar lighter, ashtray, and radio control switches, etc. which are lightened only when the headlights (parking lights) are activated.

We would like to confirm that the above items are not applied the variable illumination requirements. Please advise us in detail in this matter.

QUESTIONNAIRE (2)

FMVSS Ho. 201 ; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

Paragraph S3.5.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201 provides the dimensional requirements for armrests as follows;

"Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically inside elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area."

Our concern, however, centers on how to measure the armrest vertically in side elevation.

We believe that this provision does not necessarily require completely plain area of 2 in. x 2 in. on the armrests such as Ill.1 below, and that the armrests which have, to some extent, rounded inside surface, such as Ill.2, shall be deemed in compliance with this provision.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

And we also believe that no matter how the armrests have more than 2 in. side elevation considerably sharply projected armrests such as Ill.3 shall be deemed in noncompliance with the provision.

However, we can not be sure the criteria for distinguish Ill.2 from Ill.3. Though we think the most important point to be concerned is its contactability by the occupant , we can not necessary surely know the procedures to prove the contactability.

Therefore we would like to ask your kind favor of showing us ' the guideline to how to measure armrests to decide the compliancy to S3.5.1(c).

And further, as we are designing a little more complicated shape such as shown on the next page, we wish you would advise us about the compliancy of the armrest.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

FMVSS No. 219 ; Windshield Zone Intrusion

Paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 219 provides:

"When the vehicle ......, no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, ...."

In the case that the windshield wiper penetrate the protected zone template ( by some reason such as pushed by the deformed cowl , or accidentally turned-on of wiper switch as a result of contact with test dummy), we would like to confirm whether the veh icle is deemed in compliance or not. (Refer to the illustration below)

We believe the penetration of wiper blades shall be deemed in compliance because the wiper blades are designed to be normally contact with the windshield. The wiper arms, however, only contact with the windshield though the wiper blade. Please advise us about the exemption of wiper arms from this intrusion provision.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

ID: nht95-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 19, 1995

FROM: Patrick M. Raher -- Hogan & Hartson

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request For Interpretation - Seat Positioning Procedure Under FMVSS 208, 214

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO PATRICK M. RAHER (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

In the process of reviewing the requirements contained in the seat positioning procedures of FMVSS 208 and 214 for purposes of providing guidance to one of our clients, we noted that, depending on the interpretation of certain provisions, there is a p otential for as many as three different seating positions that could occur in a dynamic test. Such a situation is unacceptable from a certification and compliance standpoint. Accordingly, we are requesting an interpretation from your office.

FMVSS 208 (S8.1.2) and 214 (S 6.3) specify that "adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between the forward most and rear most positions, and if separately adjustable in the vertical direction, are at the lowest position." We have inte rpreted the foregoing to require that the midway point between a seat's maximum forward and maximum rearward position is the point at which the seat in its lowest configuration must be placed for purposes of testing. A question has arisen, however, with respect to power seats which have different maximum seating locations in the forward and rearward position depending on seat height. In such a situation the language of both standards could be interpreted to allow positioning of the seat at other than the true mid-point.

In order to provide you with an indication of the basis for this issue arising, we are enclosing three diagrams indicating driver seat ranges of motion for a power seat type assembly. These diagrams include step-by-step instructions on three possible interpretations of seat positions for adjustable seats prior to dynamic crash testing. We believe that since the seat positions described in all three operations vary because the seat position potential is trapezoidal rather than rectangular, due to th e mechanism utilized in the power seat operation, there are potentially different interpretations of the standards and, therefore, it is appropriate for your office to issue an interpretation clarifying this matter.

The impact of the three options is relatively clear. For example, when option 1 in the attachment is followed, the midway position of the seat is determined by

* raising the seat to its highest position and moving it forward, which is the farthest forward position;

* lowering the seat and moving it to its furthest rearward position; * finding the midway point of these two positions;

* moving the seat to midway position identified by the foregoing calculation

As you can see from Option 2 in the attachment, it is also possible to read the regulation to allow for the same forward and rearward reference points but to move the seat in its upward position to the mid-point and then lower the seat which, because of its mechanical operations, would actually move the seat back from the true midpoint of the seat travel line. Finally, Option 3 in the attachment could lead to a situation where the lowest seat position is used for identifying the forward and rearward most locations and identifying a midpoint. This, we believe is the most unlikely of all three interpretations because it fully ignores the most forward seating position.

In view of the importance of this interpretation to the issuance of proper legal advice under your regulations, we would very much appreciate a prompt interpretation of this question. We are, of course, fully prepared to meet with you or discuss the situation by telephone, to clarify any questions you may have and expedite issuance of a response to this request. We look forward to hearing from the Agency with respect to their interpretation of this matter.

Best regards.

ID: 2650o

Roderick A. Boutin, Esq.
960 One Main Place
101 S.W. Main Street
Portland, Oregon 97204

Dear Mr. Boutin:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke, of my staff, asking for a statement of the legal requirements that would apply to a new product one of your clients plans to introduce. You provided no description of this product in your letter, other than to state that it "alters the alignment of an upper torso restraint to the increased comfort of the wearer." You also stated in the letter that the product would initially be sold as an aftermarket accessory to be installed by consumers, but that it might eventually be sold to manufacturers to be installed in new vehicles. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke on November 20, 1987, you stated that this product would clip the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of wearer's abdomen.

Although we understand your concern that safety belts be comfortable for the wearer, we have significant reservations about this product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on the product.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.208 and /571.210, respectively), applicable to new vehicles, and to establish Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209), applicable to new seat belt assemblies. It does not appear that any of these regulations would apply to your client's product, however.

Additionally, you are not required to get some "approval" from this agency before selling the product. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

While none of our safety standards appear to apply directly to your client's product, there are several statutory responsibilities your client must assume when it manufactures the product. All manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, so we are unable to say at this time whether this product might or might not contain such a defect.

However, this product raises a host of safety concerns that we would advise your client to carefully consider. Section S7.1.2 of Standard No. 208 specifies that the intersection of the shoulder belt with the lap belt shall be at least 6 inches from the front vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant with the seat in its rearmost and lowest adjustable position. Attaching the shoulder belt to the lap belt in the middle of the abdomen, instead of joining the belts at the latchplate off to the side of the occupant, would cause the belts to no longer comply with this requirement of Standard No. 208 and would significantly alter the distribution of crash forces on the occupant. The lap and shoulder belts as currently installed distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The proposed device to attach the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of the abdomen would significantly increase the loading on the occupant's abdomen, a part of the body that cannot withstand the same loading levels as the skeletal structure. This increase in abdominal loading could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt. Additionally, by realigning the shoulder belt, the device would seem to increase the likelihood that a wearer of the belt would twist toward the middle of the vehicle, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt.

Further, it is possible that the device attaching the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of the wearer's abdomen could not withstand the forces of the crash, and would allow the shoulder belt to detach. Since the shoulder belt could have an excessive amount of slack in it, the occupant's head would be likely to contact the vehicle interior. All of these possibilities raise serious safety concerns with respect to this proposed device.

In addition, use of this product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Shoulder belts are installed in the front seating positions of most vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less in compliance with Standard No. 208. If the installation of this product causes the shoulder belts to offer less effective occupant protection, commercial establishments could not legally install the product on customers' vehicles.

The prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on safety belt systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard No. 208. However, our policy is to encourage consumers not to tamper with the safety belts installed in their vehicles. Installation of this product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:2/11/88