ID: nht71-5.28

DATE: 12/23/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of July 2, 1971, points out an apparent conflict within the upper torso seat belt anchorage location requirement of standard No. 210. The conflict is between the provision of S4.3.2 that the range of permissible locations is established with the seat back in its most upright position and the provision that the 2 dimensional manikin shall have its "H" point on the seating reference point. The manikin's "H" point may not be capable of being positioned on the seating reference point if the manufacturer has used a "nominal design riding position" other than the "most upright position" in establishing the seating reference point.

We agree that the conflict exists and intend to eliminate it by appropriate amendment in the Federal Register.

We will advise you upon issuance of the amendment.

ID: 07-000862 3-row CAFE interp (final plus SW edits)--17 Jan 08 rls

ID: aiam2440

Dear Mr. Hartman: This is in response to your letter of October 7, 1976, in which you as several questions concerning Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, and Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; Your first question asks whether a California regulation requirin 20-inch minimum seat spacing in school buses would be preempted by the requirement for 20-inch maximum seat spacing in Standard No. 222.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) provides i Section 103(d) that any state or local law or regulation on an aspect of motor vehicle performance covered by a Federal standard must be identical to that Federal standard. Although the NHTSA requirement is phrased in terms of maximum spacing while the California standard concerns minimum spacing, the aspect of performance in question is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that a California standard on seat spacing regulates the same aspect of performance and to the degree it is not identical to the Federal standard it would be preempted.; Your second question asks whether the seating reference point, a specified in relation to the H' Point used in SAE Standard J826b, varies with the size of different individuals. The seating reference point, as defined by the NHTSA in Part 571.3 allows the manufacturer some discretion in selecting a point that approximates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and the thigh. While the NHTSA definition does refer to the SAE procedures for H' point location that includes the specific measurements you cite, the manufacturer retains discretion to vary this point slightly as long as he can show that the point selected continues to simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and the thigh of the passengers for whom the seat is designed.; Finally, you note in your letter that compliance with the seat spacin required in Standard No. 222 might entail relocation of the side emergency exit, because Standard No. 217 requires that [a] vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door.' The seat spacing requirement arguably could occasion the realignment of the side emergency door, but this does not have to be the case. The manufacturer is free to adjust seat spacing to be properly aligned with the emergency exit. The NHTSA's intent in this requirement is to provide an emergency exit opening extending at least 2 feet rearward of a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back. The agency would not prohibit the use of doors wider than 2 feet as long as a minimum 2-foot opening is provided rearward of the reference plane and the latch mechanism is operated by a device located within the required 2-foot opening.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 12073.ogm

Mr. Myungwon Park
Chief Manager
Daewoo Certification
Daewoo Motor Company

Dear Mr. Park:

This is in response to your facsimile transmission of June 25, 1996, in which Daewoo Motor Corporation (Daewoo) asks several questions regarding the design of a door panel. In particular, your letter seeks information relating to an armrest integrated in this door panel and the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Your facsimile transmission contained four questions and several drawings depicting the interior door panel in a side view and in section view. The questions are repeated below followed by the individual answers:

1. We would like to know whether or not the door trim would follow the regulations for armrest? (The armrest is integrated so we would like to know your view)
   
   

   The term "armrest" is not defined in Standard 201. The basic meaning of "armrest" in Webster's New Third International Dictionary is "a support for the arm." Therefore, the question of whether the door trim depicted in your drawings must meet the requirements for armrests contained in S3.5 of Standard 201 is dependent on whether the door trim is likely to be used by occupants to rest their arms during normal use of the vehicle. While the drawings provided in your facsimile transmission do not provide dimensions for the width of the horizontal sections of the door trim, it appears as if portions of this trim would be used by occupants to rest their arms. Therefore, these portions of the door trim would be required to meet S3.5 of Standard 201. The agency cannot, however, provide your company with an opinion regarding compliance of this particular design as NHTSA does not give prior approval to specific designs.
   
   

2. If question 1 is related to the regulations, where would the limit for the armrest at the door trim section?
   
   

   Standard 201 does not specify where an armrest must be located. Under the Standard an armrest must conform to one of the requirements found in S3.5.1. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with Standard 201 by conforming to the requirements of S3.5.1(c), an armrest must, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of continuous coverage in the pelvic impact area along at least 2 inches of its length.
   
   

3. Whether or not the groove section shown below would violate FMVSS 201?
   
   

   Provided that the armrest conforms either to S3.5.1.(a), (b) or (c), the groove section depicted in your drawings would not violate Standard 201. If your inquiry is directed specifically to the requirements of S3.5.1(c), it appears from the drawings provided with your request that in this instance the groove does not result in a discontinuity sufficient to violate the requirement that 2 inches of continuous vertical coverage be provided. A copy of an August 21, 1987, letter to Daihatsu Motor Co. which addresses this issue, is enclosed for your information.

4. What is the length, in mm the pelvic area in H-PT in the FMVSS 201 regulations.
   
   

   The pelvic impact area is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3. The dimensions given in that definition have not yet been converted from english to metric. The pelvic impact area is that area of the door or body panel adjacent to any outboard designated seating position which is bounded by horizontal planes 7 inches above and 4 inches below the seating reference point and vertical transverse planes 8 inches forward and 2 inches rearward of the seating reference point. Therefore, the location of the pelvic impact area is dependent on the location of the seating reference point within the vehicle.
   
   

   The seating reference point is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as the unique design H-point, as specified in SAE J1100 (June 1984), which:
   
   
   

   1. Establishes the rearmost normal design driving or riding position of each designated seating position, which includes consideration of all modes of adjustment, horizontal, vertical, and tilt, in a vehicle;
   2. Has X, Y, and Z coordinates, as defined in SAE J1100 (June 1984), established relative to the designed vehicle structure;
   3. Simulates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh;
      
      

      and

   4. Is the reference point employed to position the two-dimensional drafting template with the 95th percentile leg described in SAE J826 (May 1987), or, if the drafting template with the 95th percentile leg cannot be positioned in the seating position, is located with the seat in its most rearward adjustment position.

   
   
   

   Once this H point is located, the pelvic impact area may be located on a door or body panel. As the pelvic impact zone extends eight inches forward of the H-Point and two inches rearward from the H-Point, the pelvic impact area is 10 inches long.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:201

d:12/17/96

ID: Google -- compiled response to 12 Nov 15 interp request -- 4 Feb 16 final

Chris Urmson

Director, Self-Driving Car Project

Google, Inc.

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway

Mountain View, CA 94043

Dear Dr. Urmson:

This responds to your November 12, 2015 letter[1] requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interpret a number of provisions in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) as they apply to Google’s described design for motor vehicles that it is in the process of developing and testing.  According to Google, those self-driving vehicles (SDVs) are “fully autonomous motor vehicles, i.e., vehicles whose operations are controlled exclusively by a Self-Driving System (SDS).”  The SDS is an artificial-intelligence (AI) “driver,” which is a computer designed into the motor vehicle itself that controls all aspects of driving by perceiving its environment and responding to it.[2]  Thus, Google believes that the vehicles “have no need for a human driver.” 

In this response, NHTSA addresses each of Google’s requests for interpretation, and grants several of them.   In some instances, the issues presented simply are not susceptible to interpretation and must be resolved through rulemaking or other regulatory means.  NHTSA believes that many of these issues may be resolved on an interim basis through well-supported exemption petition(s), and invites Google to file such petitions.  In other instances, if Google is able to provide sufficient additional information and evidence, it may be possible to resolve open issues through interpretations.

INTRODUCTION

Google describes its vehicles as having what NHTSA’s May 2013 Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles calls Level 4 Full Self-Driving Automation.  According to that Statement, a Level 4 vehicle

is designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip. This includes both occupied and unoccupied vehicles. By design, safe operation rests solely on the automated vehicle system.

Google is asking for interpretations to determine how it would certify its SDV to the FMVSS.  In essence, Google seeks to produce a vehicle that contains L4 automated driving capabilities, and removes conventional driver controls and interfaces (like a steering wheel, throttle pedal, and brake pedal, among many other things).  Given that the SDS controls all aspects of driving, and given Google’s belief that the SDS consistently will make the optimal decisions for the SDV occupants’ safety (as well as for pedestrians and other road users), the company expresses concern that providing human occupants of the vehicle with mechanisms to control things like steering, acceleration, braking, or turn signals, or providing human occupants with information about vehicle operation controlled entirely by the SDS, could be detrimental to safety because the human occupants could attempt to override the SDS’s decisions.  While the L4 automation is the impetus behind these design decisions, it is Google’s design decisions that create the uncertainty over how to apply the FMVSS to Google’s proposed vehicle. 

Google’s design choices in its proposed approach to the SDV raise a number of novel issues in applying the FMVSSs.  Those standards were drafted at a time when it was reasonable to assume that all motor vehicles would have a steering wheel, accelerator pedal, and brake pedal, almost always located at the front left seating position, and that all vehicles would be operated by a human driver.  Accordingly, many of the FMVSSs require that a vehicle device or basic feature be located at or near the driver or the driver’s seating position.  For vehicles with an AI driver that also preclude any occupant from assuming the driving task, these assumptions about a human driver and vehicle controls do not hold.  As self-driving technology moves beyond what was envisioned at the time when standards were issued, NHTSA may not be able to use the same kinds of test procedures for determining compliance.  And since the Safety Act creates a self-certification system for compliance, NHTSA’s verification of a manufacturer’s compliance (and thus, the agency’s ability to enforce against non-compliance) is based on our established test procedures.

In order to determine where to place vehicle devices and features, or whether to provide them at all, Google has asked who or what is to be considered the “driver” and which seating position is considered to be the “driver’s seating position” in its SDV.  49 CFR 571.3 defines “driver” as “the occupant of a motor vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system.”  Because Google’s SDV design purposely does not have any mechanism by which human occupants could steer or otherwise “drive” the vehicle, it would be difficult in several instances to determine who the “driver” would be in its SDV, and thus to determine how to certify its motor vehicle design to certain FMVSS provisions that reference that “driver.”  To attempt to solve this challenge, Google has offered different interpretations of “driver” or “driver’s seating position” for NHTSA’s consideration, varying with the specific requirement or circumstances, and requests that we confirm its interpretations.

Specifically, Google suggests two potential interpretations of “driver” and one potential interpretation for “driver’s position” or “driver’s designated seating position” in the context of its described motor vehicle design:

• NHTSA could interpret the term “driver” as meaningless for purposes of Google’s SDV, since there is no human driver, and consider FMVSS provisions that refer to a driver as simply inapplicable to Google’s vehicle design;
• NHTSA could interpret “driver” and “operator” as referring to the SDS; or
• NHTSA could interpret “driver’s position” or “driver’s designated seating position” as referring to the left front outboard seating position, regardless of whether the occupant of that position is able to control the vehicle’s operation or movements.

Google then applies these suggested interpretive approaches to a number of FMVSS provisions in order to justify being able to certify its intended motor vehicle design as compliant with the FMVSSs, without having to change the design in ways that Google finds problematic. 

We will address each of Google’s suggested interpretations in turn.  The critical point of NHTSA’s responses for many of the requested interpretations is that defining the driver as the SDS (or the driver’s position as the left front position) does not end the inquiry or determine the result.  Once the SDS is deemed to be the driver for purposes of a particular standard or test, the next question is whether and how Google could certify that the SDS meets a standard developed and designed to apply to a vehicle with a human driver.  Related, in order for NHTSA to interpret a standard as allowing certification of compliance by a vehicle manufacturer, NHTSA must first have a test procedure or other means of verifying such compliance.

While some of Google’s requested interpretations may be permissible given the facts presented here, we wish to make clear that many of the other requests present policy issues beyond the scope and limitations of interpretations and thus will need to be addressed using other regulatory tools or approaches.  NHTSA further notes that in a number of instances (in particular, several included in Table B), it may be possible for Google to show that certain standards are unnecessary for a particular vehicle design.  To date, however, Google has not made such a showing.  We note that these interpretations are confined to the specific facts and circumstances set forth in Google’s letter, and that they do not apply to other facts and circumstances.  We also emphasize that the interpretations NHTSA is issuing are subject to change or revocation if new or different facts or information comes to light.

DISCUSSION

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (“Safety Act,” 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.  Under the Safety Act, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not make determinations as to whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of a NHTSA compliance test.  Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture.  Manufacturers are also responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects.  NHTSA enforces compliance with the FMVSSs by testing vehicles and regulated equipment.  NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects and conducts related enforcement and recall actions. 

As a foundational starting point for the interpretations below, NHTSA will interpret “driver” in the context of Google’s described motor vehicle design as referring to the SDS, and not to any of the vehicle occupants.  We agree with Google its SDV will not have a “driver” in the traditional sense that vehicles have had drivers during the last more than one hundred years.  The trend toward computer-driven vehicles began with such features as antilock brakes, electronic stability control, and air bags, continuing today with automatic emergency braking, forward crash warning, and lane departure warnings, and continuing on toward vehicles with Google’s SDV and potentially beyond.  No human occupant of the SDV could meet the definition of “driver” in Section 571.3 given Google’s described motor vehicle design – even if it were possible for a human occupant to determine the location of Google’s steering control system, and sit “immediately behind” it, that human occupant would not be capable of actually driving the vehicle as described by Google.  If no human occupant of the vehicle can actually drive the vehicle, it is more reasonable to identify the “driver” as whatever (as opposed to whoever) is doing the driving.  In this instance, an item of motor vehicle equipment, the SDS, is actually driving the vehicle. 

NHTSA will consider initiating rulemaking to address whether the definition of “driver” in Section 571.3 should be updated in response to changing circumstances, as contemplated by Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.  Section 5, Reducing Regulations, of that Order provides that each federal regulatory agency will

[i]n order … to determine whether regulations promulgated by the executive branch of the Federal Government have become unjustified or unnecessary as a result of changed circumstances …  periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified or eliminated so as to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective in achieving the regulatory objectives …

NHTSA recognizes that it can take substantial periods of time to develop some rulemaking proposals and final rules, including time spent obtaining review of those proposals and seeking and analyzing public comments.  NHTSA further understands that the time it takes to conduct rulemakings may, in some instances, make such proceedings ill-suited as first-line regulatory mechanisms to address rapidly-evolving vehicle technologies.  That said, there are limits to the result the agency may reach in an interpretation, even if it believes that result might be sound policy.  An interpretation describes an agency’s view of the meaning of an existing statute or regulation.  It can make sense of the overall legal framework and provide clarity for regulated entities and the public.  For example, an interpretation may clarify a statutory or regulatory term or provide crisper and more detailed lines than the regulation or statute being interpreted.  An interpretation may not, however, make a substantive change to the statutory or regulatory regime or to the clear language of a provision.  In particular, an interpretation may not adopt a new position that is irreconcilable with or repudiates existing statutory or regulatory provisions.   

In many instances, interpreting the term “driver” in a manner that Google has requested does not necessarily change the requirements of the regulation or otherwise fully resolve the issue Google seeks to address. Because the interpretations provided by this letter do not fully resolve all of the issues Google has raised, Google may wish to explore the interim step of seeking exemptions.  Exemptions are available under 49 U.S.C. 30114 and 49 CFR Part 555 for manufacturers able to demonstrate that features of their products provide equivalent levels of safety to those required by the FMVSS.  

1. “Priority Interpretive Issues”

Google requested NHTSA’s interpretation of several “priority interpretive issues” related to the absence of a human driver.  Google also provided two tables, Attachments A and B, listing FMVSS provisions for which Google requested that NHTSA interpret the “driver” or “operator” to be the SDS (provisions in Attachment A) and other provisions for which Google requested that NHTSA interpret “driver” to be the human occupant seated in the left front designated seating position (primarily provisions in Attachment B).  We address these interpretation requests in the order presented by Google’s November 12 letter.

FMVSS No. 135, “Light Vehicle Brake Systems”

Deeming the SDS to be the “driver” of a motor vehicle does not excuse that vehicle from compliance with the brake requirements of applicable standards.  FMVSS No. 135 contains requirements for service brakes and associated parking brake systems.  Among these requirements is S5.3.1, which states that service brakes “shall be activated by means of a foot control,” and also that “control of the parking brake shall be independent of the service brake control, and may be either a hand or foot control.”  Google’s described motor vehicle design does not include hand or foot controls for either the service brakes or the parking brake.  Google argues that because the SDS will control all aspects of braking, it would not be necessary or beneficial for safety for a human occupant to be able to brake the vehicle.  Google therefore requests that NHTSA interpret these provisions regarding the activation or control of braking systems to be inapplicable to its described motor vehicle design.  Similarly, Google requests that NHTSA interpret S6.5.1 of FMVSS No. 135 to allow the service brake system performance requirements to be met if the SDS activates the service brakes, rather than “solely by use of the service brake control” as the provision directs. 

We agree that Google’s SDS may be deemed to be the driver for purposes of compliance with these provisions.  Given that there will be no foot (or even hand) control to be activated – indeed, given that the SDS will have neither feet nor hands to activate brakes – we understand that Google’s described vehicle design would not comply with S5.3.1 as written.  We also understand Google’s assertions that the SDS will be able to activate the brakes electronically such that its vehicle will “stop [] safely and in accordance with all performance requirements of FMVSS No. 135.”  The fact that the SDS may be programmed to perform the tests enumerated in FMVSS No. 135 does not, however, overcome the plain language of S5.3.1.  NHTSA would need to commence a rulemaking to consider how FMVSS No. 135 might be amended in response to “changed circumstances” in order to ensure that automated vehicle designs like Google’s, i.e., ones that control all braking through an AI driver and do not provide brake controls to vehicle occupants, have a way to comply with the standard.  Such a rulemaking would also consider S6.5.1 and any other provisions that implicate the potential use of a foot-actuated service brake control.  In the interim, Google may wish to consider petitioning the agency for an exemption from these provisions.[3]

FMVSS No. 101, “Controls and Displays”

FMVSS No. 101 contains requirements for location, identification, color, and illumination of motor vehicle controls, telltales, and indicators.  S5.1.1 requires the controls listed in Tables 1 and 2 of the standard to be “located so that they are operable by the [belted] driver.”  S5.1.2 requires the telltales and indicators in those Tables and their identification to be “located so that, when activated, they are visible to a [belted] driver.”  Google states that its motor vehicle will not have any of the controls listed in Tables 1 and 2 because there will not be a human driver in its vehicle.  Further, Google believes that allowing the human occupants to affect the operation of, for example, lamps or turn signals otherwise controlled by the SDS could be detrimental to safety.  Google therefore asks that NHTSA interpret S5.1.1 to be inapplicable to its motor vehicle design, or that NHTSA interpret Google’s SDS to be the “driver” for the purposes of S5.1.1.  For S5.1.2, Google says it will equip its vehicle’s occupant compartment with the telltales and indicators required by other FMVSSs (like the telltales/indicators for malfunctions of the brake system, electronic stability control system, or tire pressure monitoring system).  For purposes of placement of those telltales and indicators, Google requests that NHTSA interpret the “driver position” to be the left front seating position.

Because we interpret “driver” as referring to the SDS, we agree with Google that the controls listed in Tables 1 and 2 may simply be operable by the SDS and need not be located so that they are available to any of the human occupants of the motor vehicle.  Similarly, telltales and indicators must also be “visible” to the SDS.  For purposes of both S5.1.1 and S5.1.2, we interpret the SDS to be the “driver.”  However, we have no defined way at this time of verifying Google’s compliance with this interpretation of these requirements.  Thus, if Google certified its compliance with these provisions consistent with this interpretation, NHTSA would be unable to conduct confirmatory testing to satisfy ourselves that the Google vehicle is compliant.  Therefore, unless and until NHTSA has a standard and testing procedures to confirm compliance with S5.1.1 and S5.1.2, or a standard providing equal or greater safety, it cannot conclude that Google’s SDV is compliant with those requirements.  In order to determine what “operable by” and “visible to” the SDS mean, and to establish procedures for testing compliance with those requirements using its existing regulatory tools, NHTSA would be required to conduct a rulemaking.

In the interim, Google may wish to petition the agency for an exemption from these provisions.[4]  Additionally, we agree with Google that it could be beneficial to vehicle occupants to be aware of certain aspects of vehicle status through telltales and indicators while they are traveling in the vehicle.  Given the historical status of the left front seating position as the location of the human in charge of vehicle operation, we agree that Google may voluntarily locate telltales and indicators so that they are visible to that position.  However, if it is foreseeable that a different seating position is more likely to be occupied, it may make more sense for the telltales and indicators to be located so that they are visible in another position.

FMVSS No. 108, “Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment”

FMVSS No. 108 contains requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.  Google states that it “recognizes that all vehicles must comply with all of the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 108 with respect to external lamps and reflectors,” but asks that NHTSA interpret S6.6.1 of FMVSS No. 108 to allow certain internal controls “to be excluded from the occupant compartment, as long as their functions are performed by the vehicle autonomously.”  S6.6.1 requires all vehicles covered by FMVSS No. 108 to be “equipped with a turn signal operating unit, a turn signal flasher, a turn signal pilot indicator, a headlamp beam switching device, and an upper beam headlamp indicator meeting the requirements of S9.” 

With respect to turn signal operating units, Google requests that NHTSA interpret the term “operator” in the S4 definition of “turn signal operating unit” to mean the SDS.  That definition states that the unit is “an operating unit that is part of a turn signal system by which the operator of a vehicle causes the signal unit to function.”  Google notes that, in its vehicle, the turn signals will be operated and controlled by the SDS.  Google’s letter also addresses S9.1.1, which requires that the “turn signal operating unit…must be self-canceling by steering wheel rotation and capable of cancellation by a manually operated control.”  Google requests that NHTSA interpret this provision to be met by Google’s SDS since there would not be any steering wheel or conventional turn signal stalk.  Google also argues that providing either a steering wheel or the ability to control turn signal operation to the vehicle occupants could be detrimental to safety.  Google further asks that NHTSA “expressly acknowledg[e]” that a steering wheel is not required by the FMVSS.  The supplemental information Google provided on January 11, 2016 stated that the SDV’s turn signal operating unit self-cancels based on the position of the steering rack (which is controlled by the SDS), “which is what happens in a conventional vehicle by virtue of the link between the steering rack, steering column, and steering wheel,” and that Google therefore believes that the SDV complies with S9.1.1.

With respect to the S9.4 requirement for headlamp beam switching devices, which provides that “[e]ach vehicle must have a means of switching between lower and upper beams designed and located so that it may be operated conveniently by a simple movement of the driver’s hand or foot,” Google again states that the SDS will control headlamp beam switching “fully and appropriately” and that human occupant control over such functions could be detrimental to safety.

For purposes of these provisions of FMVSS No. 108, we interpret the SDS to be the “driver.”  We also agree that the “operator” of a turn signal operating unit is the SDS, because NHTSA has typically used “driver” and “operator” interchangeably in its interpretations over time.  We further agree that a steering wheel is not expressly required by any FMVSS.  We agree with Google that, as described, the SDV appears to be designed to self-cancel the turn signal operating unit as NHTSA would have intended, had vehicles without steering wheels been available when FMVSS No. 108 was developed.  Similar to the provisions of FMVSS No. 135, however, the fact that the SDS may be programmed to cancel the turn signal and switch headlamp beams does not overcome the (other) plain language of S9.1.1 and S9.4.  Even if we agree that Google’s self-cancelation for the turn signal operating unit is consistent with our intent in S9.1.1., that provision further expressly requires that the turn signal be capable of cancellation by a “manually operated control.” We understand Google’s argument that in the case of the SDV, manual cancelation of the turn signal operating unit by a human occupant could interfere with decisions already made by the SDS in ways that could affect safety.  However, this is an issue that cannot be addressed through interpretation alone.  Similarly, S9.4 specifically requires operation of headlamp switches by movement of the “driver’s hand or foot”.[5]  Under existing test procedures, we cannot verify Google’s compliance with these express requirements. 

Unless and until NHTSA has a standard and testing procedures to confirm compliance with these provisions, it cannot interpret Google’s SDV as compliant with these standards and requirements.  In order to determine what requirements would be appropriate, and to establish procedures for testing compliance with those standards, using its existing regulatory tools, NHTSA would be required to conduct a rulemaking.  NHTSA would need to consider how it could propose to amend FMVSS No. 108 in order to ensure that automated vehicle designs like Google’s, i.e., those that control all lighting and signals through the AI driver and do not provide lighting or signal controls to vehicle occupants, have a way to comply with the standard.  Meanwhile, Google may wish to petition the agency for an exemption from these provisions.  An exemption petition could seek to demonstrate that Google’s SDV would provide an equivalent level of safety to that provided by compliance with the FMVSS.[6] 

1. Interpretive Issues regarding “Miscellaneous Provisions in Other FMVSS”

Google also requested interpretation of several other “miscellaneous provisions in other FMVSS” relating to the absence of a human driver.

FMVSS No. 111, “Rear Visibility”

FMVSS No. 111 contains requirements for rear visibility devices and systems, requiring that vehicles have external and internal rear view mirrors to provide the driver with certain fields of view around and behind the vehicle.  FMVSS No. 111 also requires that vehicles display a rearview image (of a specified area of certain dimensions behind the vehicle) to the vehicle operator.  Google asks that NHTSA interpret these provisions as requiring that the specified view be provided to the SDS, rather than to the human occupant.  Google further requests that “the vehicle would be deemed compliant if the SDS receives sensor input at least equivalent to the images a driver would be able to view through mirrors and a rear visibility system meeting the field of view and other performance requirements of the standard.”

As above, because we are interpreting “driver” and “operator” in this instance to refer to the SDS, we agree that the information required by the provisions of FMVSS No. 111 that must be provided to the “driver” or “operator” may be provided to the SDS.  Here again, we have no defined way at this time of verifying Google’s compliance with this interpretation of those requirements.  Thus, if Google certified its compliance with these provisions consistent with this interpretation, NHTSA would be unable to conduct confirmatory testing to satisfy ourselves that such certification was valid. 

Therefore, unless and until NHTSA develops and adopts appropriate performance criteria and test procedures for evaluating whether the sensor input received by the SDS provides enough information to ensure that the SDS is as well informed by its sensors of the conditions behind and around it as a human driver of a conventional vehicle that meets the existing requirements of FMVSS No. 111 (or a standard providing equal or greater safety), it cannot interpret Google’s SDV as compliant with these standards and requirements.  This would need to be undertaken through rulemaking.  NHTSA may also consider as part of such a rulemaking whether there is benefit to conveying this information to human occupants in the case of vehicle designs like the Google SDV.  Google may wish to petition the agency for an exemption from these provisions, in which it could seek to demonstrate that its SDV would provide an equivalent level of safety to that provided by compliance with the FMVSS.[7] 

FMVSS No. 114, “Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention”

FMVSS No. 114 contains requirements intended to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from theft and accidental rollaway of vehicles.  Among these requirements is S5.3, which requires vehicles with an automatic transmission that includes a “park” position to have a system that “requires the service brake to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of ‘park.’”  Google states that its vehicle will not have any brake pedal, and that its SDS “will determine the appropriate transmission position and will not select a position other than park unless the service brake is first applied by the SDS.”  Google therefore requests that NHTSA interpret S5.3 as met by this described approach.

We agree that the language of S5.3 requiring the service brake to be depressed does not necessarily require the service brake itself to be pressed or applied by any particular object or function, such as a human foot.  We also agree that if the SDS is controlling the service brake, in theory, it would be able to make the decisions that would accomplish the intent of this provision.  In order for NHTSA to assess compliance of Google’s vehicle with this standard, however, we would need more information regarding how the SDS applies the service brake.  We would also intend to develop and adopt through rulemaking performance standards and test procedures for evaluating how (for example) the SDS “determines the appropriate transmission position” and avoids “selecting a position other than park unless the service brake is first applied.”  NHTSA might also consider as part of such a rulemaking the safety intent of the standard, and how human occupants should be protected when the vehicle is making decisions about when to initiate movement.  Google may wish to petition the agency for an exemption from these provisions.[8] 

FMVSS No. 126, “Electronic Stability Control Systems”

FMVSS No. 126 contains performance and equipment requirements for electronic stability control (ESC) systems.  Google argues that because its vehicle will not have a steering wheel, and the SDS will control all aspects of steering, NHTSA should interpret the relevant provisions of FMVSS No. 126 “to allow compliance with the performance requirements of the standard to be tested on the basis of appropriate steering inputs provided by the SDS.”  Google cites in particular the definition of an ESC system in S4 as referring to “a means to monitor driver steering inputs” and the test conditions in S6 and test procedures in S7, which refer to steering wheel velocity and angle.

Test procedure provisions in S7 (such as S7.5.2, S7.5.3, S7.6, S7.6.1, S7.9.3, and others) refer specifically to measurement of “steering wheel angle,” which is, literally, a measurement of the angle of the steering wheel in degrees.  Without a steering wheel, we agree that Google cannot certify its vehicle design to such provisions.  As above, in order for NHTSA to assess compliance of Google’s vehicle with this standard, we would need to determine how to evaluate the SDS’ control of the steering inputs, and whether and how to modify test conditions and procedures to address more clearly the situation of a vehicle with steering controlled entirely by an AI driver, with no mechanism for the vehicle occupants to affect the steering.  Google could petition for exemption from the relevant provisions of FMVSS No. 126

and the agency could work to develop alternate test procedures.  Over the longer term, NHTSA would need to undertake rulemaking to incorporate test procedures into FMVSS No. 126 to provide a clearer path to compliance for similar future vehicle designs.

Google’s letter concludes with two attachments, summarily listing numerous additional provisions for which it seeks interpretation.  Attachment A lists “Requirements for which the ‘Driver’ or ‘Operator’ should be considered to be the Self-Driving System.”  The letter provides no further explanation or justification for those requested interpretations.  Attachment B provides a similar list of FMVSS “Requirements for which the ‘Driver’ should be considered to be a person seated in the left front designated seating position.”  We address these numerous items in Attachments A and B in Tables A and B, to this letter, respectively (attached).  The Tables in those attachments reproduce each of Google’s requests in the first three columns, and provide NHTSA’s response in the final column.

In closing, we note that, in some instances, it may be possible for Google to provide more information and explanations that would allow NHTSA to expand or otherwise revise interpretations set forth in this letter.  If Google believes it can address concerns and limitations expressed in this letter that prevent us from providing the full interpretation it seeks, we encourage the company to submit more information to do so. In addition, as discussed above, Google may wish to seek exemptions from standards and requirements addressed in this letter. I hope this information provided in this letter and its attachments is helpful.  If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 366-2830, or Steve Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel for Vehicle Safety Standards and Harmonization, at (202) 366-2992.

                                                                        Sincerely yours,

                                                                        Paul A. Hemmersbaugh

                                                                        Chief Counsel

III.  Table A

NHTSA interprets the SDS to be the “driver” or “operator” for the following specific FMVSS provisions.  As discussed above, we have no defined way at this time of verifying Google’s compliance with this interpretation of these requirements.  Thus, if Google certified its compliance with these provisions consistent with this interpretation, NHTSA would be unable to conduct confirmatory testing to satisfy ourselves that such compliance was valid.  Therefore, unless and until NHTSA develops performance criteria and test procedures for evaluating whether the SDS satisfies the FMVSS provision in question to be met, or a standard providing equal or greater safety, it cannot interpret Google’s SDV as compliant with these standards and requirements.  Google may wish to petition the agency for exemption from these petitions in the interim.

1. Table B

For specific FMVSS provisions set forth on Google’s Attachment B, Google requested that NHTSA interpret the human occupant seated in the left front designated seating position (‘DSP’) as the “driver.”  As discussed above, NHTSA defines “driver” for purposes of the FMVSS at 49 CFR 571.3.  We also discuss above the need to amend that definition in light of the possibility that Google raises, that an AI driver could be the sole means of driving a vehicle.  Given the focus of the definition of “driver” as, essentially, the entity that controls steering, and given that Google’s proposed vehicle design gives the human occupant no means to steer the vehicle, the human occupant of the left front DSP could not be the driver.  Moreover, interpreting “driver” as the human occupant of the left front DSP in the instances below that Google cites would not, in most cases, provide Google with a means of certifying that its proposed vehicle design complies with the applicable standard, because the agency would need to establish standards and tests to verify that the design complies. 

It may be that for some of these provisions, the elimination of a human driver makes the provision unnecessary, as Google implies in its letter.  NHTSA will consider these issues further and looks forward to receiving additional information from Google to assist us in this consideration.  For the following provisions, we are therefore continuing to interpret “driver” as referring to the SDS, and discuss what steps would need to be taken next in order to provide a path forward:

[1] Google also submitted a supplemental letter date January 11, 2016, providing more detailed information on its approach to canceling the turn signal, which is discussed below.

[2] NHTSA considers this AI driver to be an item of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30102 and other applicable law and regulations.

[3] Google may also wish to reconsider its view that a pedal may never be needed in any circumstance, and that there is not a risk of harm associated with a pedal’s absence.

[4] Google may also wish to reconsider its view that the controls listed in Tables 1 and 2 of S5.1.1 may never be needed in any circumstance, and that there is not a risk of harm associated with their absence.

[5] We note that S9.4.1 of FMVSS No. 108 provides a mechanism by which a manufacturer can certify a “semi-automatic headlamp beam switching device,” but Google did not ask for interpretation of this provision, nor do we have enough information to assess whether Google’s proposed design would comply with this provision.

[6] Google may also wish to reconsider its view that a steering wheel and the vehicle occupants’ ability to control any lighting and signals may never be needed in any circumstance, and that there is not a risk of harm associated with their absence.

[7] Google may also wish to reconsider its view that rear visibility devices and systems may never be needed in any circumstance, and that there is not a risk of harm associated with their absence.

[8] Google may also wish to reconsider its view that a pedal may never be needed in any circumstance, and that there is not a risk of harm associated with a pedal’s absence.

[9] We note that NHTSA has previously interpreted this provision as prohibiting automatic (i.e., non-driver initiated) control of turn signal lamp flashing, but we do not consider this interpretation as inconsistent with those, because in this instance we are interpreting the “driver” (the SDS, given that the human occupants have no mechanism by which they can drive the vehicle) as being the entity controlling the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit.  NHTSA would like to explore further with Google the instances in which Google would intend for the SDS to flash the hazard warning signals.

ID: 11857-1.PJA

Mr. William Shapiro
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your May 6, 1996, letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). You asked what position should be used to determine the driver's field of view for purposes of the standard's outside rearview mirror requirements, the rearmost seating position or the seating reference point. Your question arose from an inconsistency that you have identified in our standards. As discussed below, we plan to resolve this inconsistency in rulemaking. In the meantime, we will consider vehicles as being in compliance with the standard's outside rearview mirror requirements if they meet those requirements with the field of view determined at either the rearmost seating position or the seating reference point.

S5.2.1 of Standard No. 111 states that the driver=s side rearview mirror shall provide the required view Awith the seat in the rearmost position.@ (Emphasis added.) That section goes on to state that "the location of the driver's eye reference points shall be those established in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 ('571.104) or a nominal location appropriate for any 95th percentile male driver." As you noted in your letter, Standard No. 104 specifies use of the seating reference point to establish the driver's eye reference points. The seating reference point establishes the "rearmost normal design driving or riding position," and not necessarily the absolute rearmost position. Since the rearmost seating position and the seating reference points may differ, fields of view based on these positions may differ.

As noted by your letter, this inconsistency was created as a result of recent rulemakings amending the definition of seating reference point and Standard No. 104. As a result of those rulemakings, the eye reference points in Standard No. 104 are no longer necessarily determined with the seat in the rearmost position. These rulemakings inadvertently created an inconsistency in Standard No. 111, since that standard retains the reference to rearmost position.

We plan to resolve this inconsistency in rulemaking. In the meantime, we will consider vehicles as being in compliance with the requirements of S5.2.1 of Standard No. 111 if they meet the performance requirements of that section with the field of view determined at either the rearmost seating position or the seating reference point.

I hope this information is helpful. 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,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:111#104 d:6/18/96

The definition of seating reference point was amended by a final rule published on August 12, 1991 (56 FR 38084). Standard No. 104 was amended by a final rule published on March 9, 1993 (58 FR 13021). 2

A:\11857-1.PJA

ID: 21292

Mr. Vernon H. Rye
Director of Engineering
B & D Independence Co. Inc.
214 S. Market Street
Mt. Carmel, Il 62863





Dear Mr. Rye:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating systems, and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, as they apply to a product manufactured by your company. The product, designated in your letter as the "Power Transfer Seat Base" (PTSB), is described by you as an adjustable seat pedestal that has the capability to move in as many as ten directions of motion. The PTSB, which is intended for use in full size vans and minivans adapted for people with disabilities, is a power-driven device that allows a person in a wheelchair or scooter to transfer themselves into and out of the original (OEM) seat. You indicate that the PTSB is bolted to the vehicle floor and the OEM seat is bolted to the PTSB in place of what you describe as the OEM seat "pedestal."

Your letter states a number of concerns you have regarding the PTSB and compliance with the requirements of Standards No. 207 and No. 210. You note that the PTSB has the ability to move the seat, and therefore the driver, so far toward the rear of the vehicle that existing seat belt anchorage locations would become ineffective and the driver would most likely not be able to reach any of the vehicle controls. The PTSB may also raise the seat so far up that an occupant would be above the position where a deploying airbag would provide adequate protection in a frontal crash. You also state that due to the large number of adjustments possible with the PTSB, defining the range of adjustments for testing under Standard No. 207 might be confusing or difficult. In addition, you ask 17 questions regarding the definition of certain terms used in these standards. You also ask, in light of the capability of the PTSB to move the seat beyond the range of adjustment provided by the OEM seat assembly, where the PTSB, the OEM seat, and all adjuster mechanisms need to be positioned to conduct "static pull tests" under Standards No. 207 and No. 210. Finally, your letter contains a number of suggestions for amendment or clarification of the foregoing standards. Our response to the issues raised by your letter and the questions and concerns therein are provided below.

Before addressing your specific concerns, I would like to state, by way of background information, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. '30101 et seq.), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable requirements at the time of the item's first retail sale. In this instance, the two standards referred to in your letter, Standard No. 207 and Standard No. 210, are vehicle and not equipment standards. Therefore, responsibility for compliance with these two standards lies with the manufacturer of the vehicle and not the manufacturer of the equipment incorporated into the vehicle.

I also note that the equipment manufactured by your company appears to be intended to modify completed vehicles in order to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. In the case where such modifications are performed prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the person performing the modifications to the vehicle would be required to certify that the modified vehicle met all applicable safety standards affected by the alterations (See 49 CFR 567.7). In the case where the modifications are performed after the first sale of the vehicle, the person performing the modifications must ensure that they do not violate a statutory provision that prohibits certain entities from making certain equipment and features inoperative. Specifically, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle that is in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. '30122). We have interpreted the term "make inoperative" to mean any action that removes or disables safety equipment or features installed to comply with an applicable standard, or that degrades the performance of such equipment or features. Violations of this provision are punishable by civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.

Accommodating the special needs of persons with disabilities frequently requires modifications to a vehicle. These modifications frequently require the modification or removal of required safety features. In the past, NHTSA has addressed the need to remove, disconnect, or otherwise alter mandatory safety equipment for people with disabilities by issuing, in certain circumstances, a separate letter assuring the individual requestor that we will not take enforcement action against the business modifying the vehicle. However, on February 27, 2001 a final rule creating limited exceptions to the "make inoperative" provision was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 12638). These limited exceptions allow repair businesses to modify certain types of Federally-required safety equipment and features, under specified circumstances.

One of the general concerns raised by your letter is how the wide range of positions that the seat may be adjusted to, if the PTSB is used, may affect compliance with safety standards. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that limits or specifies the location or range of adjustment in a seat. However, you correctly observe that modifying an existing OEM seat to provide a range of adjustments that allow an occupant to be located outside of the range of locations allowed by the OEM seat could affect compliance with a number of standards, including Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, and Standard No. 207, Seating systems. Any modifier who installed the PTSB prior to first sale would have to assure that the vehicle continued to meet these safety standards and certify that the vehicle complied before the vehicle could be sold. If the PTSB were to be installed after the vehicle had been sold to a consumer, a professional repair shop or installer would have to avoid violating the "make inoperative" provisions outlined above. If determining whether the installation would make a required safety feature inoperative would be prohibitively expensive or difficult, the installer could apply to NHTSA for an exemption from the "make inoperative" provision.

Your letter also contains a number of individual questions regarding Standards No. 207 and No. 210. These questions and the agency's response are provided below:

Question 1. What is a seat pedestal?

Response: The term "seat pedestal" is not defined in Standard No. 207 or Standard No. 210. NHTSA considers a "seat pedestal" to be a columnar structure on the lower portion of a seat used to attach the remainder of the seat to a vehicle. Seat pedestal seat are often used in heavy trucks and buses where an air suspension system is incorporated into the seat. NHTSA considers seat pedestals to be part of the seat itself for the purposes of Standard No. 207.

Question 2. What components are considered part of the seat pedestal?

Response: As noted above, for the purposes of Standards No. 207 the seat pedestal is considered to be part of the seat. Under Standard No. 210, a pedestal may also be a seat belt anchorage. The fact that a pedestal may be a seat belt anchorage under Standard No. 210 does not prevent the same component from being part of a seat under Standard No. 207.

Question 3. Is a seat pedestal the same as a seat base?

Response: Yes.

Question 4. Where is the dividing line between the seat and seat pedestal?

Response: For the purposes of Standard No. 207 and No. 210, there is no dividing line.

Question 5. Are the manual sliding adjustment tracks on the bottom of a seat part of the seat or part of the seat pedestal? Are these manual sliding adjustment tracks part of the seat, since the tracks are unboltable from the seat pedestal and not from the seat?

Response: Sliding adjustment tracks on the bottom of a seat are part of the seat. As any pedestal is considered part of the seat, the manner in which the adjustment tracks are attached or incorporated into the seat has no bearing on whether the tracks are part of the seat.

Question 6. Is the power adjusting mechanism part of the seat or the seat pedestal? Is this power adjusting mechanism part of the seat, since the power mechanism is unboltable from the seat pedestal and not from the seat?

Response: If a power adjustment mechanism is provided, it is part of the seat. As noted above, the manner in which a pedestal is attached to an adjustment mechanism is immaterial, as the pedestal is considered part of the seat.

Question 7. Is the seat considered to be anything that is unboltable from the seat pedestal?

Response: No.

Question 8. Refer to FMVSS 207, Section 3, Definitions. "Seat adjuster means the part of the seat that provides forward and rearward positioning of the seat bench and back, and /or rotation around a vertical axis, including any fixed portion, such as a seat track. In the case of a seat equipped with seat adjusters at different levels, the term means the uppermost seat adjuster." These 2 statements pose the following questions:

a.) With respect to statement #1 in bold quotations above, is a PTSB considered part of the seat?

Response: Yes.

b.) If the PTSB is considered part of the seat, why is the term "seat pedestal" included in FMVSS 210, Section 3, Definitions, if there is no "seat pedestal" due to FMVSS 207, Section 3, definitions?

Response: Standard No. 210 applies to seat belt assembly anchorages, including anchorages that are incorporated into seats. The term seat pedestal was included in the definition of "seat belt anchorage" contained in Standard No. 210 to ensure that readers of the standard understood that a seat pedestal could also serve as a seat belt anchorage.

c.) With respect to statement #2 in bold quotations above, the PTSB has 2 seat adjusters at 2 different levels. The uppermost seat adjuster is specified only here. To perform the FMVSS 207 and FMVSS 210 testing, where does the lower seat adjuster need to positioned?

Response: The performance requirements in S4.2 of Standard No. 207 specify the amount of force the seat must withstand when tested in accordance with S5 of the standard. According to S5, "Test Procedures," for a seat whose back and seat bench are attached to the vehicle with the same attachment and whose height is adjustable, the loads are applied when the seat is in its highest adjustment position. With respect to the PTSB and the conditions specified in page 9 of this letter, we recommend that the forces specified in S4.2(a) and S4.2(b) be applied with the OEM seat at its highest original position.

Question 9. Refer to FMVSS 207, S4.2, General Performance Requirements. Sentence number one states, "When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than....". Does this term "occupant seat" refer to just the seat or the seat and pedestal combined?

Response: As noted above, the term occupant seat refers to the seat and the pedestal combined.

Question 10. Refer to FMVSS 207, Section 4.2.1., Seat Adjustment. The first statement states, "Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks and buses, each seat shall remain in its adjusted position when tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in S5." Does this above statement mean the "nonlocking suspension portion" of this suspension type occupant seat is actually considered part of seat and not the seat pedestal? Can a seat pedestal have a nonlocking suspension?

Response: The nonlocking suspension portion of a seat is considered part of the seat. As noted above, a seat pedestal is considered to be part of a seat. A seat pedestal may have a nonlocking suspension only when it is installed either in a truck or a bus. This would preclude the installation of a seat with a nonlocking suspension in an MPV or passenger car.

Question 11. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 3, Definition. "Seat Pedestal" is listed but no definition is given as to what, specifically, is a seat pedestal. Refer to Question #1 above and give a definition.

Response: See the response to question 1.

Question 12. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 4.3.1.1(a) and 4.3.1.1(b). "If the seat is a nonadjustable seat (for part a), or if the seat is an adjustable seat (for part b), then a line...". Are these sentences referring just to the seat or the seat and seat pedestal combined? If the sentences are referring to the seat and seat pedestal combined, our PTSB positions the seat at the center of the vehicle where it is not driveable.

Response: Question 12 Sections 4.3.1.1(a) and 4.3.1.1(b) specify the allowable range of belt angles resulting from the location of seat belt anchorages within a vehicle. As any pedestal is part of the seat, the use of the term "seat" in these sections refers to any pedestal and seat as a single assembly. The determination of these angles is based on measurements taken from the Seating Reference Point (SgRP) - which is defined, in part, in S571.3 - as the rearmost normal driving position. By definition, these belt angles are determined with the seat in its rearmost driving position, not necessarily the rearmost position that seat can attain. However, under most circumstances, these positions would be the same.

Question 13. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 4.3.1.2, the end on the first sentence. "...on the seat frame with the seat in the rearmost position". Is this referring to just the seat or the seat and seat pedestal combined? If this is referring to the seat and seat pedestal combined, the same situation occurs as with question #12 above.

Response: As noted above, the seat pedestal is considered to be part of the seat itself. Again, the Seating Reference Point (SgRP) is the point that is used as a reference point in determining belt angles.

Question 14. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 4.3.2, the second sentence. "Adjust the seat to its full rearward and downward position...." Is this referring to just the seat or seat and the seat pedestal combined? If this is referring to the seat and the seat pedestal combined, the same situation occurs as with question #12 above.

Response: Again, the seat pedestal is part of the seat assembly.

Question 15. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 4.3.2(b). "For adjustable anchorages, compliance with this section shall be determined at the midpoint of the range of all adjustment positions." The female seat belt receptacle is located on the OEM seat or the OEM seat pedestal. Since there is now a PTSB installed in the vehicle, the female seat belt receptacle is moveable with the PTSB. Does the above bold quotation mean the range of all adjustment locations of the PTSB? Or, since the female seat belt receptacle is not adjustable, is the above bold quotation not relevant to the female seat belt receptacle?

Response: S4.3.2(b) addresses the permissible range of locations for upper anchorages of Type 2 belts and specifies that any adjustable anchorage shall be located at the midpoint of any adjustment positions when the location of the upper anchorage is tested for compliance with Standard No. 207. Unless the female receptacle is located on an upper anchorage, S4.3.2 does not apply.

Question 16.

Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 5.2, Seats with Type 2 or Automatic Seat Belt Anchorages. First sentence. "With the seat in its rearmost position, apply..." Is this statement referring to just the seat or seat and seat pedestal combined? If this is referring to the seat and seat pedestal combined, the same situation occurs with question #12 above.

Response: As noted above, NHTSA considers the seat pedestal to be part of the seat. S5.2 outlines the performance requirements for belt anchorages. S5.2, which does not distinguish between driver and passenger seats, specifies that a seat must be in its rearmost position when the anchorages are tested. Accordingly, NHTSA would test the anchorages in that rearmost position, even in the event the rearmost position would not allow most drivers to actually operate the vehicle.

Question 17. In the FMVSS 207 & FMVSS 210 standards, the vertical positioning of the OEM seat adjuster is specified. If an up/down travel mechanism is installed above the swivel mechanism, but below the OEM seat, where does this up/down travel mechanism need to be positioned for the FMVSS 207 & FMVSS 210 testing?

Response: The general performance requirements for seats are found in S4.2 of Standard No. 207. S4.2(a) and S4.2(b), which specify the forces that a seat must withstand in the forward and rearward directions, both specify that the seat is tested in any position to which the seat can be adjusted. S4.2(d) specifies that a seat is in its rearmost adjustment position. The agency has consistently interpreted these sections to require that a seat meet these requirements at any vertical position within the seat's range of adjustment.

You also ask, in light of the ability of the PTSB and the OEM adjuster to move a seat over a wide range, where do the PTSB, the OEM seat and all adjuster mechanisms need to be positioned to conduct static pull tests under Standard No. 207 and Standard No. 210? I assume that your inquiry regarding static pull tests relates to meeting the requirements of S4.2 of Standard No. 207 and S4.2 of Standard No. 210, and performing the anchorage strength test procedure found in S5.1 and S5.2 of Standard No. 210. S5.1 and S5.2 both specify that a seat is in the rearmost position when the test is performed. If a seat is adjusted in its rearmost position and its relative fore and aft position does not change when moved through the range of vertical adjustments, a compliance test may be performed at any vertical position of adjustment. If the vertical movement of the seat moves the seat in such a fashion that the fore and aft position of the seat changes during the vertical movement, the seat would be tested in the rearmost position as attained by the use of both the vertical and horizontal adjustments.

Finally, you make a number of suggestions for either amending or clarifying Standards No. 207 and No. 210. One suggestion you make is that the agency create different definitions of "primary" and "secondary" seat adjusters. You suggest that an adjuster that is closest to the seat structure, presumably the seat pan, should be defined as the "primary" adjuster and the "secondary" adjuster should be an adjuster furthest from the seat pan or an adjuster that has the ability, like the PTSB, to move individuals beyond the "seatbelt" and "airbag" zones. In your view, Standards No. 207, No. 210, and No. 208 should be amended or interpreted to specify that existing requirements relating to seat adjustments should apply to the "primary" adjuster only and that any and all secondary adjusters should be adjusted to their maximum downward position with the seat facing forward and aligned with the centerline of the steering wheel. Depending on the standard involved, the secondary adjuster should be adjusted to its maximum forward position or its maximum rearward position as appropriate. Alternatively, you suggest that the definitions in Standard No. 207 and No. 210 be modified so that a seating system would consist of three components. The first component would be the seat itself, including all structures above the adjuster assembly. The second component would be the pedestal, which would be any component between the adjustment mechanism and the vehicle structure. The third component would be the adjuster, which would be that portion of the seating system that provides any movement of the seat.

I would like to emphasize that NHTSA is very concerned about the safety of all motor vehicles users, including those with disabilities. At the same time, the agency is also very much aware that there is growing need for adaptive vehicles that provide mobility for persons with special needs. As noted above, NHTSA has just issued a final rule that provides limited exemptions to the "make inoperative" provisions of Chapter 301 when a vehicle must be modified for a particular individual (66 FR 12638). However, this final rule does not contain any exemptions from Standard No. 207 or Standard No. 210 allowing for the installation of six-way power seat bases similar to the PTSB. The agency stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding the final rule that in the case of six-way power seat bases, it was reasonable and practicable to expect that such seat bases could be manufactured to comply with Standard No. 207 (63 FR 51557). Similarly, NHTSA also believed that there was no need to create an exemption for Standard No. 210 (63 FR 51558). None of the comments submitted in response to the NPRM took issue with the agency's position regarding either of these standards. Accordingly, the final rule did not provide an exemption either for six-way power seat bases or for Standard No. 210. However, in considering the case of six-way power seat bases, NHTSA did not distinguish between the positions the seats may attain when being used for ingress and egress and those positions the seats may be used in when the vehicle is capable of being driven.

In regard to your suggestions relating to modifying the definitions in Standard No. 207 and Standard No. 210 to create a distinction between "primary" and "secondary" adjusters or the seat "pedestal" and the "adjuster" or base, doing so would require that NHTSA amend these standards through rulemaking. Moreover, redefining a device such as the PTSB as a "secondary adjuster" or a "pedestal," without taking into account the ability of the device to adjust the seat when the vehicle is being used on the highway, would ignore the potential safety consequences of its use as well as the fact that the PTSB and similar devices, when installed, are the sole means by which the seat is attached to the vehicle. Therefore, we decline to adopt any interpretation that would create such a definition.

Standard No. 207 is intended to ensure that seats and their attachments are strong enough not to fail as a result of "forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact." (S1) In light of your letter, the agency has examined the need for adaptive vehicles to accommodate persons with disabilities. We note that your product works in conjunction with an OEM seat to assist individuals in entering and exiting the vehicle. If the PTSB does not provide an additional range of adjustments beyond those provided by the OEM seat while the vehicle is in motion, the purposes of Standard No. 207 would be met by testing the PTSB within the range of the OEM adjustments. Accordingly, NHTSA would exercise its enforcement discretion and refrain from taking action in the event a vehicle equipped with such a PTSB is found not to comply with Standards No. 207 and No. 210. However, this exercise of our enforcement discretion would be limited to those instances where the following conditions are met:

1) The PTSB or a similar device cannot be operated while the vehicle is in motion.

2) The PTSB must return the OEM seat to a position within the range of adjustments of the OEM seat as originally installed before the vehicle can move under its own power.

3) The seat of a PTSB equipped vehicle cannot be moved outside of the range of adjustment attainable by the OEM seat originally provided with the vehicle while the vehicle is in motion.

4) Certification tests establish that PTSB equipped vehicles meet the requirements of all applicable standards with the PTSB positioned as it would be while the vehicle is in motion - i.e., within the range of adjustments of the seat as installed by the original manufacturer of the vehicle.

I hope this information answers your questions. Please contact Otto Matheke of my office at (202) 366-5253 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.8/21/01

ID: GF000494

Ms. Erika Z. Jones
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
1909 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your January 16, 2004, letter regarding applicability of 49 CFR 571.201, S6.3(b) to targets located near third row folding bench seats. Specifically, you ask whether targets located within 600 mm of a third row folding bench seat, which is not a split row bench seat, are excluded from the requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, when the third row bench seat is in a stowed position. NHTSA will not test these target points for compliance if the seat, when stowed, is not likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion.

S6.3(b) excludes targets located rearward of a vertical plane 600 mm behind the seating reference point of the rearmost designated seating from the requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 of FMVSS No. 201. In your letter, you describe a vehicle featuring three rows of seats. The third row bench seat stows to in order to create an expanded cargo area. The third row seat has a latch system attached to the D-pillar that secures the seat back in its upright position. When the third row bench seat is stowed, the latch remains exposed. The latch is located within 600 mm of the seating reference point of the third row bench seat, but beyond 600 mm from the seating reference point of the second row seat. You ask if the second row seating position would be considered the rearmost designated seating position when the third row seat is stowed.

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as "any plain view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats." The third row folding bench seat described in your letter is not an auxiliary seating accommodation because it is not a temporary or a jump seat but a permanent seat available for use by occupants.

When in the upright position, the third row seat described in your letter constitutes the rearmost designated seating position for the purpose of S6.1 and S6.2. In a 1993 interpretation letter to Michael Love of Porsche, the agency stated that a folding rear seat described in that letter would be considered a designated seating position at all times. We noted that the examples provided by Porsche were not precise enough for us to make a more specific determination as to whether the vehicle in question must comply with all requirements related to a specific designated seating position. In the present case, the third row seat, when in its stowed position, is unlikely to be used for anything other than cargo carrying, since it appears that all available leg room would be occupied by the folded seat back.

Accordingly, NHTSA would not test for compliance with S6.1 and S6.2 at the target point in question when the third row seat is in its stowed position. However, compliance with the requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 would be verified when the third row bench seat is in its upright position intended for occupant use.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.5/4/04

ID: nht76-2.19

DATE: 11/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Crown Coach Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 7, 1976, in which you ask several questions concerning Standard No. 217 Bus Window Retention and Release, and Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Your first question asks whether a California regulation requiring 20-inch minimum seat spacing in school buses would be preempted by the requirement for 20-inch maximum seat spacing in Standard No. 222.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) provides in section 103(d) that any state or local law or regulation on an aspect of motor vehicle performance covered by a Federal standard must be identical to that Federal standard. Although the NHTSA requirement is phrased in terms of maximum spacing while the California standard concerns minimum spacing, the aspect of performance in question is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that a California standard on seat spacing regulates the same aspect of performance and to the degree it is not identical to the Federal standard, it would be preempted.

Your second question asks whether the seating reference point, as specified in relation to the "H" Point used in SAE Standard J826b, varies with the size of different individuals. The seating reference point, as defined by the NHTSA in Part 571.3 allows the manufacturer some discretion in selecting a point that approximates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and the thigh. While the NHTSA definition does refer to the SAE procedures for "H" point location that includes the specific measurements you cite, the manufacturer retains discretion to vary this point slightly as long as he can show that the point selected continues to simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and the thigh of the passengers for whom the seat is designed.

Finally, you note in your letter that compliance with the seat spacing required in Standard No. 222 might entail relocation of the side emergency exit, because Standard No. 217 requires that "[a] vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." The seat spacing requirement arguably could occasion the realignment of the side emergency door, but this does not have to be the case. The manufacturer is free to adjust seat spacing to be properly aligned with the emergency exit. The NHTSA's intent in this requirement is to provide an emergency exit opening extending at least 2 feet rearward of a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back. The agency would not prohibit the use of doors wider than 2 feet as long as a minimum 2-foot opening is provided rearward of the reference plane and the latch mechanism is operated by a device located within the required 2-foot opening.

SINCERELY, Crown COACH CORPORATION

October 7, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Motor Vehicle Programs Office of Chief Council

SUBJECT: Federal Standard 222-School Bus Seating and Crash Protection

We are presently trying to establish a seating floor plan to conform to your standards. So far, we know of only one manufacturer that may produce a seat meeting your requirements, namely American Seating Company.

The point in question is the establishment of some manufacturing tolerance between seats. Standard 222 states the maximum spacing from the seats, Seating Reference Point (SAE "H" Point), is 20 inches. This distance is equal to the minimum California standard of 25 inches from seat back to the back of the seat in front. This would leave no manufacturing tolerance. We know that Federal Standards take precedence, but the State could put a limitation on minimum spacing. American Seating has told us that they are using 20 inches +/- 1/2 inch. as a target. They will also have a tolerance on the thickness of their seat, which would affect seat spacing.

Another question on the "H" Point as specified in SAE Standard J826 - the distance up from the seat to the "H" Point is 3.84 Inches and from the "H" Point to the seat back is 5.28 Inches. Would not these dimensions change with respect to different percentile figures?

The location of the seats and tolerances create another problem which cannot be solved until something has been firmed up; that is, the location of the side emergency exit.

Standard 217, Docket No. 75-3, Notice 4, states "A vertical transverse plane tanget to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." This means the door has to float with the seat locations. Also suppose the door is larger in size than the Standard states, this would penalize the manufacturer of the bus body, having to redesign side walls to accept different door and window locations.

We have been in contact with Mr. Tim Hoyt of your Docket Writer Section, who has been very helpful, but cannot answer our specific questions, and recommends we contact your Department for clarification of the Standard and specific answers to our problems.

If you need any clarification on our questions please phone and we will try to explain more fully.

Ray Hartman Vice President-Engineering

ID: 24778rbm

Mr. Klaus Hillenbrand
Siemens Restraint Systems GmbH
Carl-Zeiss-Strasse 9
63755 Alzenau

Dear Mr. Hillenbrand:

This responds to your letter asking about the seat positioning procedure in S8.1.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection, and S6.3 of FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection.The text of the two different provisions is the same. You have requested clarification of the seating procedure because your interpretation of the language in these two sections differs from an explanation of the language that was provided in a 1995 legal interpretation provided to Patrick Raher of Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P. I am pleased to provide a response.

The seat position specifications of FMVSS No. 208 (S8.1.2) and FMVSS No. 214 (S6.3) read as follows:

Adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position. If an adjustment position does not exist midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, the closest adjustment position to the rear of the midpoint is used.

In your letter, you stated that you read this language to mean that the longitudinal midposition would be determined by moving the seat in the most forward and most rearward position without moving the height adjustment and then marking the midposition at the seat rails. Height adjustment would then be made to the lowest level without any readjustment of the seat rails. Your primary question is whether the reference for the longitudinal midposition must be measured at the seat rails (where determination of the most forward/rearward position would be independent of any height adjustment) or if it can be measured somewhere at the seat pan (where height adjustment could influence the most forward/rearward position).

As discussed in the 1995 interpretation, there are two conditions concerning how an adjustable seat is positioned in a crash test. The first condition, for the longitudinal position of the seat, is for the seat to be in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, irrespective of seat height in those positions. The second condition is that the vertical position be in the lowest position obtainable with the seat in the longitudinal midposition. Depending on whether the vertical position is separately adjustable, this may or may not be the lowest achievable position for the seat in any of its longitudinal positions.

The critical issue is whether the longitudinal midposition is referenced along a longitudinal plane at the point midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions of the seat at any height.The midposition is not qualified by height, so absolute forwardmost and rearmost positions are used to determine the midposition irrespective if height at those positions. The vertical position of the seat is only determined after the longitudinal midposition has been established.

The seat position specification does not require that the longitudinal midposition be referenced at the seat rail, or at any other specific location.Any place in the vehicle that allows for the accurate marking of the longitudinal midposition is acceptable.While many test laboratories may choose to mark the midposition at the seat rail, there is no requirement that they do so.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202)366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.10/15/02