ID: nht95-5.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David T. Zelis -- Marketing Manager, Buyers Products Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/13/95 letter from David T. Zelis to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 13, 1995, forwarding literature concerning The Pintle Mount Bumper, which you describe as a new product being offered by your company that is designed to take the place of a vehicle bumper and the receiv er tube assembly on a light duty truck. In a telephone conversation with Coleman Sachs of my staff on November 22, 1995, you described this bumper as an aftermarket product that will not be supplied as original equipment on new motor vehicles. You have requested copies of any standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that may apply to the use or manufacture of this product.

NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards, found at 49 CFR Part 571, and a Bumper Standard, found at 49 CFR Part 581. None of these standards apply to the product that is the subject of your inquiry.

The Bumper Standard applies only to vehicles and not to bumpers sold as items of replacement equipment. Moreover, as stated in 49 CFR 581.3, the only vehicles to which the Bumper Standard applies are "passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose pas senger vehicles." The term "passenger motor vehicle" is defined for purposes of the Bumper Standard at 49 U.S.C. @ 32101 (10) as

a motor vehicle with motive power designed to carry not more than 12 individuals, but does not include- (A) a motorcycle; or (B) a truck not designed primarily to carry its operator or passengers.

Because the light duty pickup trucks for which your product is designed do not fall within this definition, the Bumper Standard does not apply to those vehicles.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply only to new motor vehicles and items of replacement equipment. Because your bumper is only being sold as aftermarket equipment, it could not affect the compliance of new motor vehicles with the FM VSS. Moreover, there are no FMVSS that would apply to your bumper as a replacement equipment item.

Under 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business is prohibited from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . ." This provision would be violated if any of the entities to which it refers installed your bumper on a vehicle and, as a result of that installation, the vehicle no longer complied with any applicable FMVSS. For example, the installation of an aftermarket bumper could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, if the bumper obscured any lights or other equipment required by the standard.

Because your bumper is sold as "an addition to a motor vehicle," it meets the definition of "motor vehicle equipment" in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(7)(c). As the manufacturer of such equipment, you are responsible under 49 U.S.C. @ 30118 for furnishing NHTSA and anyone purchasing your bumper with notification of, and a remedy for, any defect relating to motor vehicle safety that is determined to exist in the bumper.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

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: 2705y

Mr. S. Kadoya
Manager
Safety and Technology
Mazda Research and Development
of North America, Inc.
l203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48l05

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

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 manufacturer 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 compliance 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 operational 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/vehicle 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 would 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, NHTSA 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 particularly 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 not 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 standard 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 condition 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. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

In asking about Standard No. l08, you stated the following:

NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. l08; at the request of a confidential applicant and dated February l2, l985, with respect to active suspension equipped vehicles. This interpretation stated that the requirements of FMVSS l08 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. l08 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 location requirements when the vehicle's ignition is in either the "on" or "off" position. However, it is Mazda's interpretation that hazard warning flashers are not intended to be operational for a period of days, but rather for a period of hours, at maximum, only.

You then asked two questions, (l) 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 l985 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 vehicle 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 l08" 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 lamps, and the interpretation for hazard warning signal lamps to reflex reflectors. We concur with this application, with respect to Standard No. l08'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. l08's minimum height requirement for hazard warning signal flashers does not apply after a vehicle's ignition has been turned off for a matter of days.

In addressing how Standard No. l08 applies in the absence of a specification for vehicle height, our February l985 interpretation differentiates between situations where the vehicle is operating and where it is not. Looking at the purposes of the requirements 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. l08's minimum height requirement for hazard warning signal flashers should not apply after a specified number of hours after the ignition has been 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. lll, Rearview Mirrors

You requested an interpretation of section S5.l.l of Standard No. lll, 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 extending 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. lll is that the requirements of this standard are to be met when the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" position as rearview mirrors are not intended to be used when the vehicle's engine is not operating.

You then asked two questions, (l) whether Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. lll 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. lll, 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.l.l 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. However, the requirement would need to be at all vehicle heights that occur during vehicle operation, under the loading conditions specified in S5.l.l.

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 testing. 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 guidelines (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 suspension 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.l.l of Standard No. lll, 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 vehicle'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.l 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.l 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 requirements 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. lll.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection

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

Section S8.l.l(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.l.l(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 will not have been operated for a period of days prior to arriving at the test site, the suspension height may have fallen by "y" mm. The fully loaded attitude is defined as the attitude of the vehicle when loaded in accordance with S8.l.l(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" condition 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. However, this fact is of no importance as S8.l.l(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 interpretation is that these criteria must be met with the vehicle's ignition in the "on" position only.

You then asked three questions, (l) 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 relationship 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 test 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, the relationship between the standard's attitude specification and vehicle height must be considered.

Section S8.l.l(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 accomplishes 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 delivered" 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.l.l(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.l.l(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 requirements 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 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.

A remaining issue is how section S8.l.l(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 automatic) 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.l.l(d) should simultaneously cover both suspension heights. 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.l. The ranges of height result from the differences in loading under the "as delivered" 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. lll.

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.l.l(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 meeting 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.l.l(d). As discussed above, attitude for vehicles equipped with variable height suspension systems is determined under section S8.l.l(d) using the actual suspension setting (or equivalent, if the setting is automatic) to be used in a crash test. Standards No. 2l2, Windshield Mounting; No. 2l9, Windshield Zone Intrusion; No. 30l, Fuel System Integrity

In asking about Standards No. 2l2, No. 2l9, and No. 30l, 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 l0, l982, the agency addressed 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. 2l2, No. 2l9, and No. 30l] 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 adjustment 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 suspension 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 conventional 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 given 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 these suggested interpretations are correct.

Standard No. 2l2 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. 2l9 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. 30l specifies fuel system integrity requirements for several specified crash tests. These include a frontal crash test similar to those in Standards No. 2l2 and No. 2l9. 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. 2l2, No. 2l9, and No. 30l 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 the 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 the 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 operational. 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. 30l'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 safety 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 58l Bumper Standard

In asking about the Part 58l 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, l986, 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 language 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 58l.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 adjusted 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 l2, l985, NHTSA stated that a vehicle is "required to meet the pendulum test of Part 58l in any vehicle use scenario in which the vehicle operates, and the barrier test of Part 58l when the engine is idling."

You suggested, for the barrier test, that the agency's May l986 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 pendulum 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 heights that occur only at speeds greater than 35 mph. You then requested that NHTSA provide an interpretation of Part 58l with respect to your system.

In addressing how Part 58l 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 fixed barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, at 2.5 mph. Section 58l.6 sets forth conditions applicable to bumper testing. Under section 58l.6(c), at the onset of a barrier impact, the vehicle's engine is operating at idling speed.

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 while 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. 2l5, the predecessor of Part 58l, 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 l7999, November 24, l970.

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 vehicle speed or whether the ignition is turned on.

This interpretation is consistent with an October l8, l978 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 agency 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 l 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, l984 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 pendulum test need not be met when the vehicle is nonoperational. However, this interpretation cited section 58l.6(c) in concluding that the engine is idling during Part 58l testing. Section 58l.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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08#lll#204#208#2l2#2l9#30l#58l d:l0/2/90

ID: 008315drn

Mr. Thomas V. Kazyaka
Chief Executive Officer
T.V.K. Industries, Inc.
P. O. Box 1161
Gualala, CA 95445

Dear Mr. Kazyaka:

This responds to your letter asking for reconsideration of our October 15, 2003, interpretation letter to you. In that letter, we concluded that manual transmission shift levers need not be backlit or display the gear engaged in order to comply with S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.

In your new letter, you stated again that manual transmission shift levers may not be visible in a low light environment. After reviewing your letter, we have concluded it does not provide a basis for us to change our opinion.

As we stated earlier, S3.2 of FMVSS No. 102 specifies the following requirements for vehicles with manual transmissions:

Manual transmissions. Identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, except three forward speed manual transmissions having the standard "H" pattern, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the drivers seating position.

While this paragraph requires identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, we affirm that it neither requires identification of the gear engaged nor backlighting. We also note that no other FMVSS requires vehicles with only manual transmission shift levers to identify the gear engaged or to have backlighting.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:102
d.12/9/03

ID: 11308

Mr. A.D. Fisher
308 Lolly Lane
Jacksonville, FL 32259

Dear Mr. Fisher:

This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1995, asking for our comments on the relationship of your lighting invention, "The Enlightener," to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108.

The Enlightener is intended to replace the center highmounted stop lamp. The lens has two colors, divided between amber at the top and red at the bottom. The amber portion is lit in a steady burning mode when both the accelerator and brake are not depressed, and in a flashing mode when the transmission lever is in Reverse. The red portion is lit when the brake pedal is depressed and amber is extinguished.

This device would not be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. The center highmounted stop lamp must stand alone; the lamp cannot serve another function, and paragraph S5.4(a) prohibits combining it with any other lamp.

In addition, the backup function on motor vehicles is furnished by a steady burning white lamp, required by FMVSS No. 108. The presence of a flashing amber lamp operating simultaneously would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamp by sending a conflicting signal.

I am sorry that we cannot provide you a more positive response. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office by calling (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:11/21/95

ID: 1984-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. -- M. Iwase, Manager, Techinical Administration Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimuzu-shi, Shitzuoka-ken Japan

This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1984, to Mr. Driver of this agency asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Mr. Driver has not been an official of this agency for many years, and in the future, your requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Your first question is whether Safety Standard No. 108 permits a two-headlamp system on motorcycles. The answer is yes. Paragraph S.4.1.1.34 specifies the lighting systems permissible on motorcycles. It allows two Type 2D1 or Type 2 (7 in.), or two Type 2B1 or Type 2B headlamps. Under Table IV, if two headlamps are used, they must be disposed symmetrically around the vertical center line. Two non-sealed headlamps meeting the requirements of SAE J584 may also be used, subject to the same mounting restriction. Therefore the system you propose appears acceptable under Standard No. 108.

You have also asked whether the two headlamps may be mounted one atop the other, rather than side by side. While Table IV specifies that a single headlamp must be mounted "on the vertical centerline", requires that two headlamps be disposed symetrically around it. We do not interpret this language as allowing two headlamps to be mounted adjacent to each other on the vertical centerline.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Air-Mail

Mr. E. T. Driver, Director Official of Crash Avoidance Date: June 21, 1984 Motor Vehicle Programs U.S. Department of Transportation Koito Ref. No.84.06.21.02 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Two Lamp System of Motorcycle Headlamp

Dear Mr. E. T. Driver;

We are now going to carry out engineering design of motorcycle headlamp of two lamp system as illustrated below.

We know well that there is a fact that the motorcycle with two lamp system headlamp has already been on sale in US market.

We would like you to confirm your opinion concerning the legal applicability of the two lamp system of Motorcycle headlamp.

Configuration of Two lamp system Motorcycle headlamp: INSERT GRAPH HERE Longitudinal center plane of Motorcycle

Upper Beam

Lower Bean

Upper Beam Motorcycle headlamp assembly Lower Beam

Motorcycle headlamp units

1. Photometric performance:

1-1) Each headlamp unit has equivalent dia. in dimension and photometric performance to the other and is designed to comply with the photometric requirements of table 1 & 2 of SAE J584 "Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle headlamps "specified in FMVSS No. 108, having two filaments (One is for upper beam and the other is for lower beam).

1-2) As for the combined max. value for the upper beam headlamp, the headlamp unit is optically designed to be less than 75,000 cd.

2. Installation arrangement:

Each headlamp unit is symmetrically installed about the longitudinal center line of Motorcycle.

3. Aiming adjustment mechanism:

Each headlamp unit is designed to be adjusted independently in horizontal and vertical directions

4. Others:

This motorcycle headlamp assembly is designed to conform to all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and SAE J584.

Would you please get us your advice concerning the following questions;

Question:

1. Whether the two lamp system of motorcycle headlamp be permitted legally or not.

2. Additional question in case that the two lamp system of motorcycle headlamp be permitted:

Whether the following installation arrangement be permitted or not.

INSERT GRAPH HERE Vertical arrangment

Longitudinal center plane of Motorcycle

Upon your kind review to the above, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated, and we remain,

Yours very truly,

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept.

Koito Manufacturing. Co., Ltd.

Shizuoka Works

ID: 1984-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. P.O. Box 3951 Troy, Michigan 48007-3951

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1984, asking two questions with respect to the humidity test for replaceable bulb headlamps specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

With reference to paragraph S6.8, you mention the relative humidity figure of 90 +/- 10%, and your interpretation that the six-hour cycle of the test should be run at 90% and that the 10% tolerance "is intended to cover any drift in the instrumentation, controls and the process of generating the humidity." We concur that this is a reasonable interpretation of this requirement.

You have also asked when the headlamp must be inspected after the humidity test, as paragraph S4.1.1.36(d)(7) is silent on this point. It is your interpretation that this inspection must occur directly following the test, and before the photometrics of the lamp are measured, even though, in your view, it would be more convenient to check it after the photometric test. Your interpretation is correct; this inspection must occur within the 9 to 11 minutes specified for beginning the photometric test after completion of the humidity test.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

25 April, 1984

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation -- FMVSS 108

Dear Sir:

With the Federal Register publication of June 2, 1983, environmental tests are now specified for replaceable bulb headlamps. We have two interpretations regarding the humidity test for these lamps for with we ask your concurrence.

1. Humidity Specification -- The humidity test, S6.8, requires that the lamp be subjected to 20 consecutive six-hour cycles at a relative humidity of 90 +/- 10% and then soaked for 1 hour in lower temperature and humidity. It is Volkswagen's interpretation that the six-hour cycle portion of the humidity test should be run at 90% and that the tolerance of +/- 10% is intended to cover any drift in the instrumentation, controls and the process of generating the humidity.

2. Inspection - Sections 4.1.1.36(d)(7) requires that after the humidity test in accordance with S6.8, that "the inside of the headlamp show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation", and the lamp must meet the photometric requirements. The section does not, however, specify exactly when the inspection is to take place.

It is Volkswagen's interpretation that the regulations require the inspection to take place immediately after the completion of the final one hour portion (30% relative humidity) of the humidity cycle and before the photometric measurements. This is not very practical (because of the 10 +/- 1 minute limitation on beginning the photometric tests), and inspection after the photometric measurement would be much more convenient, however we have reached this conclusion based upon our reading of the regulatory language.

Your prompt response to this request will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations

JPS/bLc

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John C. Bobak -- President, Crest Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

John G. Bobak President Crest Industries, Inc. 3841 13th Street Wyandotte, MI 48192

This responds to your letter of May 9, 1984, regarding the application of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 212, Windshield retention and standard No. 216, Roof crush resistance to aftermarket windshield adhesives. Your specific question concerned a statement made by Kent Industries that its urethane windshield adhesive "meets and exceeds" those two standards.

You are correct in your understanding that Standards Nos. 212 and 216 only apply to newly manufactured motor vehicles. The standard establish a certain level of performance for those vehicles and do not set specifications for such individual vehicle components as windshield adhesive. In addition, neither of these standards apply to item of motor vehicle equipment, such as windshield adhesive, sold as aftermarket products.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Sincerely Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel LETTER FROM JOHN G. BOBAK IS NOT LEGIBLE.

ID: 77-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 28, 1977, letter in which you ask several questions concerning Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and the definition of school bus.

You first ask whether the seat spacing requirements found in S5.2.1 of the standard are applicable to buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) equal to or less than 10,000 pounds. Buses in this weight classification do not have to comply with the mandatory seat spacing requirements. Since these buses are equipped with seat belts, the mandatory seat spacing is not necessary to provide adequate occupant crash protection.

Your second question concerns those areas required to meet the head protection zone requirements. You ask whether the window frame, window supporting structure, and window glass are included within the head protection zone requirements. The NHTSA issued an amendment of the standard (Notice 6, 41 FR 28506) in an attempt to clarify those portions of the bus subject to the head protection zone requirements. In this notice (copy enclosed), we stated that the sidewall, window and door structures were never intended to be included within the zone and are not subject to the requirements for head protection. However, the roof structure, if it falls within the zone, is subject to the requirements. If you need further information to determine the portions of your bus that would be included within the head protection zone requirements, I suggest that you send the agency sketches of your bus interior depicting those areas of concern.

Concerning seat orientation, you question whether the requirement for forward facing seats found in S5.1 of the standard applies to buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less. S5(b) of the standard lists the paragraphs of the standard applicable to buses in the above-mentioned weight classification. S5(b) does not refer to S5.1 which contains the requirement for forward facing seats. This omission was an oversight that occurred during the drafting of the regulation. The agency intended that seats in all school buses be forward facing, unless designed for handicapped or convalescent passengers as permitted in Notice 6. This intent is obvious since, as you note, we require these seats to comply with forward and rearward performance requirements. The NHTSA will soon issue an amendment of the standard to correct this omission.

Your final question concerns the definition of school bus which excludes common carriers in urban transportation. Your interpretation of this exclusion is correct. These buses are permitted to transport children to and from school but need not comply with the school bus construction standards.

SINCERELY,

COLLINS INDUSTRIES INC.

APRIL 28, 1977

ROGER TILTON NHTSA

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND THE INFORMATION YOU GAVE ME TODAY BY TELEPHONE. FROM OUR CONVERSATION AND FMVSS 571.222, I UNDERSTAND THAT SEAT SPACING SPECIFICATIONS OF SECTION 5.2, OF THE 222 STANDARDS, DO NOT APPLY TO SCHOOL BUSES AT 10,000 POUNDS OR LESS GVWR. IS THIS INTERPRETATION THE SAME AS THAT OF NHTSA? IS IT NHTSA'S RATIONALE THAT SEAT SPACING CRITERIA OF SECTION 5.2 IS NOT NECESSARY FOR BUSES UNDER 10,000 POUNDS BECAUSE THESE BUSES ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE SEAT BELTS TO RESTRAIN PASSENGERS?

SECTION 5.3.1 OF STANDARD 222 STATES THAT ANY CONTACTABLE SURFACE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED HEAD PROTECTION ZONE (S5.3.1.3) SHALL MEET THE HEAD FORM IMPACT (S5.3.1.2) AND HEAD FORM FORCE DISTRIBUTION (S5.3.1.3) REQUIREMENTS. DOES THIS INCLUDE WINDOW FRAMES? DOES IT INCLUDE WINDOW SUPPORTING STRUCTURE? DOES IT INCLUDE WINDOW GLASS?

FMVSS 222, SECTION 5.1.4, REQUIRES ALL SEATS WITH SEATS BEHIND THEM TO MEET THE FORWARD (SECTION 5.1.3) AND REARWARD (SECTION 5.1.4) SEAT PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS OF STANDARD NUMBER 222?

THE REQUIREMENT FOR FORWARD FACING SEATS, SECTION 5.1 OF STANDARD 222, IS NOT INCLUDED FOR 10,000 POUNDS AND LESS GVWR SCHOOL BUSES. HOWEVER, IN THE DEFINITION OF A SCHOOL BUS PASSENGER SEAT, THERE SEEMS TO BE EVIDENCE THAT THE SCHOOL BUS SEATS MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE FORWARD FACING, BUT MAY BE CANTED AS MUCH AS 45 DEGREES ARE MANUFACTURERS OF SCHOOL BUSES WHICH ARE LESS THAN 10,000 GVW CORRECT IF THEY POSITION THEIR SEATS AT ANY POSITION UP TO 45 DEGREES BETWEEN THE BUS LONGITUDINAL CENTERLINE AND A LINE PASSING ALONG THE FORWARD, UPPER EDGE OF THE SEAT CUSHIONS?

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE DEFINITION OF A SCHOOL BUS IS A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH MOTIVE POWER, EXCEPT A TRAILER, DESIGNED FOR CARRYING 10 PERSONS OR MORE PLUS THE DRIVER, SOLD OR INTRODUCED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FOR PURPOSES THAT INCLUDE CARRYING STUDENTS TO AND FROM SCHOOL OR RELATED EVENTS. COMMON CARRIERS IN URBAN TRANSPORTATION ARE EXCLUDED. IS THIS CONCEPT CORRECT ACCORDING TO NHTSA'S INTERPRETATION?

PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR REPLY TO MR. BYRON CRAMPTON, TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., CHEVY CHASE BUILDING, SUITE 1220, 5530 WISCONSIN AVENUE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20015.

I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR REPLY.

JAMES M. BEACH DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING

cc: BRYON CRAMPTON -- TBEA

ID: 77-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Britax (Wingard) Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 5, 1977, requesting clarification of the relationship between paragraph S5.3 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. It is your understanding that Standard No. 216 becomes "obsolete and ineffective" after August 15, 1977.

Your interpretation is incorrect. Standard No. 216 is a separate, independent standard from Standard No. 208 and remains effective in its present form regardless of the amendment of Standard No. 208 according to any of the three alternative proposals issued by Secretary Adams (42 FR 15935, March 24, 1977). Standard No. 216 is applicable to all passenger cars except those that conform to the rollover test requirements of paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by totally passive means.

Under existing Standard No. 208, a manufacturer must meet the rollover requirements of paragraph S5.3 only if he chooses to use option S4.1.2.1 (total passive protection). If the manufacturer chooses this option he can meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 instead of the rollover requirements of S5.3 until August 15, 1977, but not after that date since the alternative then expires. A manufacturer choosing to use either option S4.1.2.2 or option S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208 does not have to meet the rollover requirements of paragraph S5.3, at all. As a manufacturer of seat belts, you are undoubtedly aware that a majority of vehicle manufacturers choose to comply with Standard No. 208 by means of option S4.1.2.3.

If Secretary Adams' Alternative proposal I or Alternative proposal III becomes a final rule, Standard No. 208 will remain in the form just described above. The Secretary's Alternative II (mandatory passive restraints) proposes to make the lateral (S5.2) and rollover (S5.3) requirements of Standard No. 208 optional. A manufacturer would be permitted to use a totally passive system (meeting S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3) or to install lap belts and only meet the requirements of S5.1. If Alternative II were made final, most vehicle manufacturers would probably choose to install lap belts rather than to provide passive protection that would satisfy S5.3. As you noted, Alternative II also proposes to extend the option in paragraph S5.3 (complying with Standard No. 216 instead) from August 15, 1977, to August 31, 1980.

You are correct in your statement that the Secretary does not expect to reach a final decision on his alternative proposals until July.

SINCERELY,

MAY 5, 1977

Our ref: TVB/MPJ

Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571. Docket No. 74 14; Notice 08. March 24th 1977.

I would appreciate any clarification which you can give on the present status of FMVSS 216 and 208 in relation to the document reference on the heading.

On page 15937 of Notice 08 there are proposed three approaches to the amendment of Standard No. 208. Approach I and Approach III do not give us any problems in understanding, but there are certain parts of Approach II where we would be glad of clarification. In Section 2 of Approach II the date of August 15th 1977 would be changed to read August 31st 1980.

We are concerned particularly where this appears in S5.3. As we understand S5.3 in Federal Standard 208, as referenced, the rollover test is not compulsory if testing and conformity to FMVSS 216 has been carried out. Our understanding of S5.3 is that vehicles manufactured on or after August 15th 1977 would have to meet the requirements of S5.3 without the option of alternative certification under Standard No. 216. In other words that Standard 216 would at that date become obsolete and ineffective. Can you please confirm, or otherwise, the following statement:

1. As the Regulations stand at present vehicles manufactured on or after August 14th 1977 would be required to meet S5.3 of Standard 208.

2. As of August 15th 1977 the testing of vehicles to Standard No. 216 becomes irrelevant in all respects.

3. That this situation would stand if either Approach I or Approach III were taken as the amendement to Standard No. 208.

4. That no official decision on the amendement of 208 by means of any of the three approaches will be available before July 1st 1977.

We are not only interested in the applicability of Standard 208 with regard to occupant protection but also from the viewpoint of the use of either Standard 208 or Standard No. 216 in relation to body strength and in particular roof crush, if there is manufacturer or replacement equipment fitment of an opening roof unit.

It appears to us, as mentioned above, that testing for conformity to Standard No. 216 is likely to be irrelevant for any purpose after August 15th this year.

Any clarification you can give would be greatly appreciated.

T.V. Barlow Safety Engineer -- BRITAX (WINGARD) LTD.

ID: nht80-2.18

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stewart-Warner Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. R. W. Strauss Stewart-Warner Corporation Washington Offices 425 - 13th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004

Dear Mr. Strauss:

This responds to your letter of January 24, 1980, which requested approval of an odometer design developed by Stewart-Warner in order to comply with section 4.2.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. Based on our understanding of the information that you have supplied, it appears that Stewart-Warner's design, which incorporates either a seventh wheel or a sixth wheel (for odometers which do not register tenths of a mile) printed with a series of the numeral 1 to indicate that the vehicle has traveled in excess of 99,999 miles or kilometers, would comply with section 4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 127.

Section 4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 127 requires that each odometer other than a motorcycle odometer:

"clearly indicate to the vehicle driver by a sixth wheel or digit registering whole miles or kilometers or by a permanent means such as inking, when the number of whole miles or whole kilometers, as appropriate, has exceeded either at the manufacturer's option 89,999 or 99,999."

Stewart-Warner's design, as described in your letter, would register whole miles or kilometers from 100,000 to 199,999. Once the vehicle in which the odometer was installed had traveled 200,000 miles or kilometers, or more, the additional wheel on the Stewart-Warner design would no longer register whole miles or kilometers but it would indicate that the vehicle mileage had exceeded 99,999. Thus, the Stewart- Warner design, as we understand it, would apparently comply with section 4.2.3's requirement that each odometer indicate that such mileage has been exceeded.

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter and the model that you provided. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not pass approval on any vehicle design or design for vehicle equipment prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or items of vehicle equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicles or items of vehicle equipment in accordance with that determination.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have pot been greatly inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 24, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street, S. W., Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to request approval of the design approach of the Stewart-Warner Corporation to comply with Section 4.2.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127--Speedometers and Odometers.

The design approach represents the outgrowth of a 100,000-mile odometer concept originally presented on December 12, 1979, to NHTSA personnel by representatives of Stewart-Warner. At the time of this meeting, our approach to satisfying the requirements of the standard to have odometers indicate when they have exceeded 99,999 whole miles or kilometers was to add a sixth pinion gear to the assembly. This pinion gear was to have two-thirds of its circumference coated with a fire orange fluorescent color, thereby serving as an indication to the operator that the mileage on the vehicle was in excess of 99,999 miles or kilometers. It was to be installed in such a way that an area of approximately .125 x .375 inches would be visible on the left hand side of the odometer when the vehicle would be operating between 100,000 and 299,000 miles or kilometers.

The aforementioned approach to meeting the FMVSS 127 requirements was discarded when the NHTSA personnel indicated some doubt as to whether this approach would clearly indicate to the operator when the vehicle had exceeded 99,999 miles or kilometers. After some discussion of other approaches to resolving this problem, it was agreed by all parties that the digit "1" must appear on the left hand side of the odometer if it was to clearly indicate having reached the 100,000 mile or kilometer distance.

Based on the above, the Stewart-Warner design has been changed to incorporate a seventh odometer wheel, or a sixth wheel if the odometer does not register tenths of a mile, printed with a series of number "1" on the outside periphery of the wheel. Thus, the odometer will indicate an excess of 100,000 miles or kilometers after the vehicle has traveled over 99,999 miles or kilometers.

Your prompt approval of the aforementioned design approach as a means of meeting the requirements of Section 4.2.3 of FMVSS 127 will be appreciated. A prototype mechanism equipped with a 100,000-mile odometer assembly is available for your inspection if it will assist in your review of this request.

Yours sincerely,

R. W. Strauss

RWS/jp