ID: nht93-3.7

DATE: April 19, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Matthew J. Ryan -- Director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Bureau, State of New York, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-3-93 from Matthew J. Ryan to Charles R. Hott (OCC 8382)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 3, 1993, regarding a recent final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, SCHOOL BUS PASSENGER SEATING AND CRASH PROTECTION (58 FR 4586; January 15, 1993). This final rule requires buses designed to transport persons in wheelchairs to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems meeting specified performance standards. You request confirmation of two statements that you believe correctly construe the new requirements. The statements and our response to each follows.

1. IF A SCHOOL BUS IS BUILT OR MODIFIED TO ACCOMMODATE ONE OR MORE WHEELCHAIRS, AFTER JANUARY 17, 1994, THE RESTRAINT/SECUREMENT SYSTEM REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION CHANGE MUST BE COMPLIED WITH.

This statement is partially correct. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (VSA) prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. The rule you ask about becomes effective on January 17, 1994, and would apply to all school buses manufactured on or after that date. Therefore, you are correct that a school bus manufactured on or after that date, and which has one or more locations designed for carrying a person seated in a wheelchair, must be equipped with a wheelchair securement device and occupant restraint system complying with the requirements of Standard 222 at each wheelchair location.

Whether a modified school bus must meet the restraint/securement requirements depends, first, on the date of manufacture of the bus, and second, the date of the modification. Since the wheelchair restraint/securement requirements would not apply to a school bus manufactured before the effective date of the requirements, a PRE-January 17, 1994, school bus modified to carry a person in a wheelchair need not meet the requirements of the new rule regardless of when the modification is made. A post-January 17, 1994, school bus that is modified BEFORE the vehicle's first sale to the consumer to carry a person in a wheelchair would have to meet the new requirements. This is because the person installing the securement system would be considered an "alterer" under NHTSA's regulations (49 CFR S567.7) and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard 222 and its restraint/securement requirements.

If a school bus is modified AFTER the vehicle's first sale, the restraint/securement system need not meet the new requirements. This is because none of our FMVSS's for vehicles (such as Standard 222) applies to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to the consumer. After a vehicle's first

sale, the only Federal requirement that would affect modifications of the vehicle is the "render inoperative" prohibition in S108(a)(2)(A) of the VSA. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The "render inoperative" prohibits commercial businesses from modifying a vehicle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards. However, the "render inoperative" provision does not require commercial businesses to bring the vehicle into compliance with standards upgraded after the vehicle was manufactured. Therefore, a used school bus modified after January 17, 1994, does not have to be equipped with wheelchair securement/restraint systems complying with the new requirements of Standard 222.

2. A SCHOOL BUS BUILT WITH NO WHEELCHAIR SEATING POSITIONS, IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A WHEELCHAIR POSITION.

This statement is correct. The January 14, 1993, final rule amended Standard 222 by adding a new section S5.4. That section requires a "school bus having one or more locations designed for carrying a wheelchair" to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems at those locations.

If a school bus is not designed for carrying a wheelchair, wheelchair securement/restraint systems do not have to be provided. The agency's rationale for not requiring all school buses to be designed to transport persons in wheelchairs is stated in the preamble to the final rule on page 4586.

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

ID: nht95-2.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1995

FROM: A. P. Corrado -- Director, Market Development Gen Corp Aerojet, Electronic Systems Division

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/14/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO A. P. CORRADO (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

The purpose of this letter is to request clarification from NHTSA concerning the application of FMVSS 208, 49 CFR @ 571.208 (Occupant Crash Protection), with respect to an "Out-Of-Position) front outboard passenger.

As you know, S4.1.5.3 of FMVSS 208 requires that all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1997, comply with the automatic front/angular protection system of S4.1.5.1(a)(1) "by means of an inflatable restraint system at the driver's and right front passenger's position". The term "inflatable restraint system" is defined in S4.1.5.1(b) as "an air bag that is activated in a crash".

Some in the industry have interpreted this standard -- particularly the word "activated" -- as mandating a system that automatically deploys a passenger-side air bag under all circumstances. However, we do not believe the term "activate" in the defin ition of "inflatable restraint system" is intended to mean "deploy in all cases". Specifically, given the purpose and intent of the Standard, we do not believe that the Administration intended to require deployment of an airbag where the deployment itse lf is likely to cause serious injury or death.

This distinction is critical given the development of sophisticated sensing devices that offer the potential of discriminating between an In-Position passenger and an Out-Of-Position passenger. Such systems, being developed initially to detect the pr esence of rear facing infant seats, offer the prospect of reducing the likelihood of serious injury or death to Out-Of-Position passengers by purposely inhibiting or restricting full deployment of the passenger side air bag.

Because we are confident that NHTSA does not intend to preclude the development or application of such sophisticated sensor systems, we would appreciate your confirmation that FMVSS 208 does not preclude the use of inflatable restraint systems that by design inhibit deployment of a passenger air bag in those identified cases where the likelihood and severity of passenger injury would be greater with air bag deployment than without.

ID: 21211.drn

Mr. Ted Cashion
7 Lowell Street
Travelers Rest, SC 29690

Dear Mr. Cashion:

This responds to your request for an interpretation "regarding the use and safety standards applicable for 11-15 passenger vans." You write that your church is considering whether to purchase a passenger van for its congregation. You did not mention whether your church has a school or will be transporting children to or from school or related events. As explained below, these factors are important in determining the Federal requirements that apply to your purchase of a van (bus). Further, States regulate the use of vehicles, so South Carolina law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how members of your congregation must be transported.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Section 30112 takes on special significance when an institutional customer will use the new vehicle to "significantly" provide transportation "to or from school or an event related to school" for school age children.

Persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. Persons selling or leasing new "buses" for such use must sell or lease a "school bus."

Our longstanding position is that the term "school" does not include church schools such as Sunday schools, or those providing other religious training. However, a regular preprimary, primary or secondary school operated under the auspices of a church would be a "school." New buses (e.g., 11- to 15-person vans) sold to carry students to or from the school must be certified as meeting our school bus standards. Further, even if your church does not operate a school, if your church were purchasing the new bus to use significantly to transport students to or from a school or events related to a school, a dealer knowing of this purpose would be required to sell a school bus.

Because our school bus regulations apply only to manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit institutions from using non-school buses to transport school children. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For this reason, South Carolina law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how children or adult members of a church must be transported.

We believe that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses. This belief is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

In the abstract of its report (a copy of which is provided), the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:

Inform your members about the circumstances of the accidents discussed in this special investigation report and urge that they use school buses or buses having equivalent occupant protection to school buses to transport children.

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using vehicles that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

In response to your request for information about safety standards applicable to "11-15 passenger vans," I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/6/2000

ID: aiam0557

Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in response to your letter of December 24, 1971, in which yo asked several questions concerning the weight rating requirements in the certification Regulations that go into effect January 1, 1972.; Your first three questions are summarized in your third question, a follows:; >>>'We are under the impression that the only way in which the GVW an GAW Ratings assigned to an Incomplete Vehicle by the Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturer can be increased would be (a) if a third axle is added, or (b) if the component parts of the existing axles are increased. Is this correct?<<<; The answer is no. The information supplied to the final-stag manufacturer by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer under Part 568 is to assist the final-stage manufacturer in completing the vehicle in conformity with the standards, and certifying in conformity with Part 567. There are no requirements, however, as to how the final-stage manufacturer uses this information. If he wishes to take it on himself to change the ratings in either direction, or to disregard the conformity information, that is his right. Of course, he will be assuming legal responsibility for whatever changes he makes, as indicated by the facts of the particular situation.; Similarly, he has the right to make whatever physical changes he wishe to the chassis, and assumes the normal responsibilities of a manufacturer in doing so. The Part 568 document offers him protection to the extent that he chooses to stay within its limits, but it is his choice to make.; You asked for a definition of 'rated cargo load' as used in the Par 567 requirement that GVWR 'shall not be less than the sum of unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.' We have not provided a definition for this term in the regulations. By it is meant simply any figure provided to the vehicle user as to the cargo- carrying capacity, by weight, of the vehicle. There is no requirement that such a figure be provided, but if it is, it must be consistent with the gross vehicle weight rating.; Finally, you asked whether it would be 'illegal' to supply a body wit a volumetric 'capacity for holding eight tons of feed,' on a vehicle whose GVWR only allowed for a cargo load of five tons. If no rating by weight is supplied, the labeling requirement would not be violated by the volumetric capacity of the body. As we stated in a recent letter on the same question, however, such action might have adverse consequences beyond the certification regulation:; >>>[C]ompleting the vehicle so that its apparent carrying capacit exceeds the stated weight ratings may create some risks of liability beyond the certification regulations themselves. If, for example, the vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction in use that can be traced to overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the effect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (section 113, 15 U.S.C. 1402) and under common-law product liability doctrines. In such a case, the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle might avoid liability, leaving it all on the final-stage manufacturer, by pointing out that the design of the vehicle as completed led the user to exceed the GVWR and GAWR furnished with the incomplete vehicle.' (Letter from L.R. Schneider to E. W. Mentzer, October 26, 1971, filed in Interpretations Redbook, Part 567, 568.); <<

ID: 77-4.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/30/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Armstrong for R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: FILE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On Sept 30, I called Mr. Premo of Sheller Globe Corp.

Discussion Mr. Premo had called the day before and asked for information about attendant seats in an ambulance. On Sept 30 we discussed the requirements of Stds 207,208, and 210 as they applied to ambulances. I told Mr. Premo that, since the attendant seats were designated seating positions, his company had to comply with the requirements of all three standards

W. SMITH

ID: aiam5104

"Dear Ms. Taylor: This responds to your letter seeking information o how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device called the 'Tap Root Equipment Stand.' The equipment stand consists of a base plate which is bolted to the floor of a vehicle, a vertical tube which attaches to the base plate, and a rotating shelf at the top of the tube. The stand is intended to be used for portable equipment such as laptop computers, facsimile machines, and car phones. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering equipment stands. However, it is possible that the installation of an equipment stand could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards. All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If an equipment stand is installed in a certified vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if an equipment stand is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards. In order to determine how installation of the Tap Root Equipment Stand could affect the compliance of vehicles with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those addressing occupant crash protection and occupant protection in interior impact. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. By way of example, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires, among other things, that passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less meet specified performance requirements in a crash test. In particular, test dummies occupying the front outboard seating positions must comply with specified injury criteria in a 30 miles per hour barrier crash test. The specified injury criteria are the head injury criteria (HIC), chest acceleration and deflection, and femur loading. Nothing in the testing requirements of Standard No. 208 explicitly prohibits the installation of an equipment stand in the interior of vehicles. However, the Tap Root Equipment Stand appears to have hard surfaces and sharp edges, especially as compared with the padded dashboard, steering wheel, seats, and other components the test dummy may contact in a crash. It may not be possible for a vehicle to satisfy the injury criteria during dynamic testing if the equipment stand was installed in an area contacted by the test dummy, or if the stand interfered with the deployment of air bags. Individual vehicle owners may modify their own vehicles without being subject to the federal safety standards. If the equipment stand is to be installed by such individual owners, however, I urge them to take potential safety hazards, such as those previously listed, into account before attempting to install the equipment stand. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are also subject to the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. If data indicated that a device such as an equipment stand exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, such as from sharp edges resulting in injuries during crashes, the agency might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall. I also note that, apart from the issue of whether the equipment stand itself posed any safety risk to vehicle occupants, it is possible that the means of installation could create problems. The manufacturer should ensure that the recommended means of installation would not result in such things as the seepage of vehicle exhaust gases into the passenger compartment or weakening of the metal floor pan. I hope this information is helpful to you and your client. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht81-3.29

DATE: 10/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hogan & Hartson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1980, in which you petitioned the agency to withdraw its recommended definition of "moped" and to define the vehicle commonly referred to as a "moped" uniformly throughout the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first petition requests the withdrawal of the recommended definition of "moped", which the agency made available as part of its series of recommendations relating to this category of vehicles.

The principal issue relates to the agency's definition of moped as a category of vehicles with pedals. In your view, the pedal requirement arbitrarily discriminates against vehicles which lack pedals but are otherwise identical to the vehicles defined in the current recommendations. To evaluate your position, the agency carried out a comparison of moped performance parameters to ascertain whether quantifiable safety differences exist between vehicles with and without pedals. The results of this analysis indicated that there are no significant differences, and the agency has therefore determined that it is appropriate to amend the definition of moped in the recommendation by removing the reference to pedals. In addition, the agency notes that the Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) regulations do not require mopeds to have pedals. Thus, to adopt your proposed definition will also aid international harmonization.

Consequently, the agency will shortly issue an advisory notice to the public of the amended definition, as it appears below, and seek additional public views for a period of thirty days.

"Moped" means a motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less, which is equipped with a motor that produces 2 brake horsepower or less. If an internal combustion engine is used, the piston displacement shall not exceed 50 cc and the power drive system shall not require the operator to shift gears.

Your second petition relates to making uniform the various definitions of low-horsepower motorcycles found in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571).

We agree that the time is now ripe to make consistent the various definitions which apply to mopeds, and will issue shortly a notice of proposed rulemaking to add to 49 CFR 571.3(b) the definition of "moped" stated above. Likewise, we propose to substitute the term "moped" for the various phrases which define this class of vehicles in 49 CFR 571.108, 49 CFR 115, and 49 CRF 571.122. In the case of 49 CFR 567.4(g), the presence of the term "moped" in 49 CFR 571.3(b) offers sufficient authority to identify a moped on the certification label when appropriate. Since the agency has indicated that it will soon propose rescinding Standard 127, it is unnecessary at this time to propose revisions to that standard.

Along with your petitions, you have asked a number of questions relating to current NHTSA regulations. The first four questions and their answers appear below. The remaining two questions, relating to the effects on State law of FMVSS 108 and 127, are being considered separately and will be answered upon our completion of an overall review of the issue of preemption under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

ENC.

Question 1: The present definition of "motor-driven cycle" is a "motorcycle" with a motor that produces 5 brake horsepower or less. 49 CFR @ 571.3 (1979). Does this mean that a "motor-driven cycle" must comply with all the regulations that affect motorcycles, unless it is specifically excepted?

Answer: Motor-driven cycles must comply with all regulations that apply to motorcycles unless specifically exempted. If a particular subcategory of motor-driven cycles is exempted, that subcategory of motor-driven cycles need not comply.

Question 2: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") 123, 49 CFR 571.123 (1979), requires that motorcycles be equipped with footrests at each seating position. If mopeds are subject to this standard, do the pedals on mopeds that are equipped with pedals satisfy the footrest requirement for the operator's seating position?

Answer: Yes. The pedals on the moped serve as footrests even when the moped is being propelled by the engine.

Question 3: FMVSS 123 also requires that motorcycle brake systems be operable either by a right foot control or by handlebar controls. If mopeds are subject to this standard, are mopeds with propulsion pedal operated brake systems in compliance?

Answer: Yes. Since such brakes are operable by the feet, they would comply with the requirement.

Question 4: FMVSS 127, 49 CFR @ 571.127 at S.3 (1979) excludes motor-driven cycles from its requirement that each motor vehicle should have a speedometer. FMVSS 123 sets marking and illumination requirements for motorcycle speedometers, 49 CFR @ 571.123 at S.1, but does not exclude motordriven cycles. If the manufacturer of a cycle that is excluded by FMVSS 127 decides voluntarily to equip its product with a speedometer, must that speedometer conform with the requirements of FMVSS 123? Must it conform with the requirements of FMVSS 127?

Answer: FMVSS 123 requires that if a motorcycle uses a speedometer, that speedometer must meet all requirements of that standard. The fact FMVSS 127 requires certain vehicles to have speedometers does not affect the uniformity requirements of FMVSS 123. Therefore, the manufacturer of motor driven cycles whose maximum attainable speed in one mile is 30 miles per hour or less need not equip such cycles with a speedometer, but if it wishes to do so, the speedometer must comply with FMVSS 123.

ID: nht94-4.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 16, 1994

FROM: Dimitrios Kallieris -- Associate Professor and Chief Division, Experimental and Forensic Biomechanics

TO: The Director, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration,

TITLE: Re: Enquiry regarding 571.212 Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting.

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Dimitrios Kallieris (A43; Std. 212)

TEXT: I am writing to enquire about the exact definition of parts of section S5.1 and S5.2 in 571.212 Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting. We have undertaken 30 m.p.h. crash tests with freshly adhered windscreens to test their adherence. Two Hybrid III dumm ies were placed in the front driver and passenger positions and each was restrained by a three-point belt and air bag. We would like to know whether these test conditions are covered by section S5.1 or S5.2. Furthermore, we are not sure whether the sect ion describes tests in which windshield displacement is measured dynamically, i.e during the crash, or statically, i.e after the crash. If dynamic measurement is required, what is stipulated by the standard regarding measurement technique, e.g. accelero meters or high-speed film/video. Could you please clarify this situation for us.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Dimitrios Kallieris.

ID: 06-007609drn

ID: nht92-6.14

DATE: June 8, 1992

FROM: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: M. Dunn; R. Rogers

TITLE: Re: R-BAR Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael F. Hecker (A39; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I wish to thank you for your response to my letter of March 31, 1992.

We understand that the R-BAR, once installed on the seatback, becomes part of the seatback and therefore is subject to the test requirements of F.M.V.S.S. #222. Further, in determining the proper test procedures for this device, in accordance with the stated regulations (CFR 49 571.222 S6.4.) and including Laboratory Procedures #TP-222-01 (re: B. Pretest Procedure, step #6), we understand that since the R-BAR is part of the seatback, and adjustable, that the testing procedures are to be done in its most upright position.

Please advise us if this is a proper interpretation of this (S6.4) regulation.

Once again, thank you in advance for consideration in this matter.