ID: aiam4676

"Dear Ms. Kent: Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretatio of whether the use of a product on motor vehicles would violate Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). This product, called 'Contra Vision,' is designed to display messages or advertising materials on windows and other clear surfaces, so that viewers on one side of the clear surface will see the message displayed, while viewers on the other side of the surface will see an essentially transparent surface without any message visible. According to your letter, this product 'will be used for promotional signage in store windows, but also has application in rear taxicab windows, as well as rear and side windows of city buses.' You asked for our opinion of whether this product complies with Standard No. 205. Some background on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulation affect this product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions. Your letter indicates that you are already aware that NHTSA has issued a safety standard that applies to the windows installed in motor vehicles. Specifically, Standard No. 205 requires that all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must comply with certain performance requirements. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement. Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with Contra Vision installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and the Contra Vision must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install Contra Vision on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install Contra Vision if the addition of Contra Vision to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install Contra Vision or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles. I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam3759

Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff seeking a interpretation of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection* (49 CFR S 571.222). You indicated that you have been informed that section S5.1.2 of that standard requires that 90 percent of the total projected area of the seat backs on school buses must lie between a horizontal plane passing through the seating reference point and a parallel horizontal plane 20 inches above the seating reference point, and that this requirement appeared to be a geometric impossibility. The information you received about the requirements of section S5.1.2 is erroneous.; Section S5.1.2 does not specify any requirements for the *total projected area of the seat back. It simply mandates that the projected area of the *seat back between the two planes* you described at *at least* 90 percent of the width of the seat multiplied by 20. This requirement is very simple to satisfy geometrically by using a rectangle. If the seat back were rectangular, the area between the two planes would be 100 percent of the width of the seat multiplied by 20. The agency allows the width of the seat back to be multiplied by 90 percent so as to permit the use of seat backs which taper up at the top, but which still provide an adequate level of safety protection for the occupants.; The reason for specifying a requirement for the amount of area a sea back must have between these two planes is to ensure that 'compartmentalization' is not compromised. Compartmentalization is the term for protecting the occupants in the event of a crash by confining them within an area of sturdy, well-padded seats. If the seat back in front of a school bus occupant occupied less than 90 percent of the area between the two planes (the area that occupant is most likely to contact in case of a crash), the padded area to cushion the blow of that occupant might not be sufficient.; If you have any further questions or need further information on thi subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke at this address and at (202) 246-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 10858

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Science Corporation
P.O. Box 1015
Golden, CO 80402-1015

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your FAX of April 19, 1995, requesting clarification of an April 3, 1995, letter from this office. You asked for verification that the "seat belt anchorages in the following scenario are exempt from the location requirement of Standard No. 210:

A vehicle with 2 front seating positions that is fitted with an air bag and manual three- point seat belt at each position, and such restraint meets the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the air bags alone and with the belts and air bags together, but the belts alone are not crash tested under FMVSS 208."

Your understanding is correct.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208 d:5/9/95

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: aiam3234

Dear Mr. Jones: This responds to your letter of January 14, 1980, requesting a interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the front seats of the 1981-model AMC Concord. Your letter states that the Concord front seats have over 50 inches of hip room as measured by SAE procedure J1100a, but you characterize the seats as 'individual' seats since they are separately adjustable. You ask whether the seats can qualify as having only two designated seating positions.; Based upon the information in your letter and on the photographs yo submitted February 22, it is our opinion that there must be three front designated seating positions in the 1981 AMC Concord. The amended definition of 'designated seating position' provides that there shall be at least three positions in any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless there is some obstruction or design preventing use of the center position. Although the seats in this model are on separate tracks and are separately adjustable, they are the functional equivalent of a split bench seat when the two sections are side-by side (as illustrated in your Number One photograph). There is not sufficient space between the seats for them to qualify as separate bucket seats. Bucket seats are typically separated by at least 8 to 10 inches. The juxtaposition and design of these 'individual' seats creates a well-padded center position. Further, although the inboard buckle portion of the seat belt assemblies occupy the center position, the buckles can be easily pushed down between the seats and would not be an impediment to use of the center position (as illustrated in your photograph Number Three).; For these 'individual' seats to qualify as having only two designate seating positions, it is our opinion that they would have to be much further apart, as is true of typical bucket seats, since they currently provide over 50 inches of hip room. Alternatively, the buckle ends of the seat belt assemblies would have to be on much stiffer cables that could not be moved out of the way or pushed between the seats. Moreover, these buckle ends must extend far enough onto the seat to provide true obstructions to use of the center position.; Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents th agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your submissions. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify the vehicles in accordance with that determination.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3235

Dear Mr. Jones: This responds to your letter of January 14, 1980, requesting a interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the front seats of the 1981-model AMC Concord. Your letter states that the Concord front seats have over 50 inches of hip room as measured by SAE procedure J1100a, but you characterize the seats as 'individual' seats since they are separately adjustable. You ask whether the seats can qualify as having only two designated seating positions.; Based upon the information in your letter and on the photographs yo submitted February 22, it is our opinion that there must be three front designated seating positions in the 1981 AMC Concord. The amended definition of 'designated seating position' provides that there shall be at least three positions in any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless there is some obstruction or design preventing use of the center position. Although the seats in this model are on separate tracks and are separately adjustable, they are the functional equivalent of a split bench seat when the two sections are side-by side (as illustrated in your Number One photograph). There is not sufficient space between the seats for them to qualify as separate bucket seats. Bucket seats are typically separated by at least 8 to 10 inches. The juxtaposition and design of these 'individual' seats creates a well-padded center position. Further, although the inboard buckle portion of the seat belt assemblies occupy the center position, the buckles can be easily pushed down between the seats and would not be an impediment to use of the center position (as illustrated in your photograph Number Three).; For these 'individual' seats to qualify as having only two designate seating positions, it is our opinion that they would have to be much further apart, as is true of typical bucket seats, since they currently provide over 50 inches of hip room. Alternatively, the buckle ends of the seat belt assemblies would have to be on much stiffer cables that could not be moved out of the way or pushed between the seats. Moreover, these buckle ends must extend far enough onto the seat to provide true obstructions to use of the center position.; Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents th agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your submissions. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify the vehicles in accordance with that determination.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4096

Dear Ms. Finkel: This responds to your March 3, 1986 letter to our office concernin requirements applicable to front seat restraining barriers on school buses. You asked whether the barriers meet the same Federal motor vehicle safety standards as the school bus seats. Specifically, you are interested in barrier-seat separation and barrier performance requirements.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenge Seating and Crash Protection*, establishes requirements for school bus seats and restraining barriers. Included in Standard No. 222 are paragraphs S5.2 through S5.2.3 which specifically apply to restraining barriers on school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. Since restraining barriers function to compartmentalize passengers in the same manner as school bus seats, the requirements of Standard No. 222 for barrier-seat separation distances and barrier strength are similar to the spacing and strength requirements for school bus seats. For example, S5.2.1 specifies that the distance between a restraining barrier's rear surface and the seating reference point of the first seat to the rear of the barrier must not be more than 24 inches. Also, under S5.2.3, barriers are tested for compliance with the forward performance requirements in the same manner as school bus seats. Both must withstand similar forces while maintaining component integrity. Force/deflection curves for seat backs and restraining barriers must fall within the zone specified in Figure 1 of Standard No. 222, and seat back and restraining barrier deflection must not exceed 14 inches. Further, restraining barriers and seat backs must meet the same impact zone requirements (S5.3) of the standard. Additional requirements for restraining barriers are specified in Standard No. 222. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your convenience.; You asked whether the front seat barrier is secured to the floor of th school bus in a different manner than the seats. Standard No. 222 does not specify how school bus restraining barriers or seats are to be secured to the floor of the bus. Manufacturers are free to select the manner of securing barriers and seats to the bus floor as long as those structures meet all applicable requirements of our safety standards.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact our office if we ca be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0374

Dear Mr. Moss: This is in reply to your letter of June 7, requesting interpretation of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.; First, with respect to Standard No. 207, you have asked whethe designated seating positions must be labeled as such. Our response is that the labeling section requires labels on seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion but does not require designated seating positions to be labeled.; With respect to the nature and content of the label on a seat no designated for occupancy, the standard states that the seat must be 'conspicuously labeled to that effect.' There are thus two general requirements: that the label be conspicuous and that it indicate that the seat is not to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. The requirement for conspicuousness relates to the location of the label and the prominence of its lettering. Generally speaking, it would have to be located so that it could be seen by a person preparing to occupy the seat and of a size that could be read by the occupant in the normal motion of sitting. The statement on the label must clearly indicate that the seat is not to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, but the exact wording is left to the manufacturer.; Standard No. 208 requires that MPV's and trucks with a GVWR of les than 10,000 pounds, manufactured from January 1, 1972 to August 15, 1975, must elect either a passive protection system or a seat belt system that requires Type 2 seat belt assemblies at outboard designated seating positions that include the windshield header within the head impact area. A similar requirement, without the passive option, goes into effect July 1, 1971, for these vehicles. Your question is whether, if a seating position does not have the windshield header within the head impact area, it is permitted to have a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Our response is that the standard permits a Type 1 belt for such a position.; Please advise us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0373

Dear Mr. Moss: This is in reply to your letter of June 7 requesting interpretations o Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.; First, with respect to Standard No. 207, you have asked whethe designated seating positions must be labeled as such. Our response is that the labeling section requires labels on seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion but does not require designated seating positions to be labeled.; With respect to the nature and content of the label on a seat no designated for occupancy, the standard states that the seat must be 'conspicuously labeled to that effect.' There are thus two general requirements: that the label be conspicuous and that it indicate that the seat is not to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. The requirement for conspicuousness relates to the location of the label and the prominence of its lettering. Generally speaking, it would have to be located so that it could be seen by a person preparing to occupy the seat and of a size that could be read by the occupant-in the normal motion of sitting. The statement on the label must clearly indicate that the seat is not to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, but the exact wording is left to the manufacturer.; Standard No. 208 requires that MPV's and trucks with a GVWR of les than 10,000 pounds, manufactured from January 1, 1972 to August 15, 1975, must elect either a passive protection system or a seat belt system that requires Type 2 seat belt assemblies at outboard designated seating positions that include the windshield header within the head impact area. A similar requirement, without the passive option, goes into effect July 1, 1971, for these vehicles. Your question is whether, if a seating position does not have the windshield header within the head impact area, it is permitted to have a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Our response is that the standard permits a Type 1 belt for such a position.; Please advise us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5443

"Dear Mr. Harpster: This responds to your letter of June 21, 1994 requesting information on whether a 'replacement rear seat used for the transport of prisoners in police cars' complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. During a July 1, 1994 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the seat could be installed either before or after the first retail sale of the police car. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to a prisoner transport seat. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.208), which sets forth strength requirements for all 'occupant seats' in passenger cars. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the prisoner transport seat occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios. Installation as Original Equipment Standards No. 207, No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the prisoner transport seat installed in the vehicle. Unlike the other four standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. The manufacturer of the seat belt system provided with the prisoner transport seat is responsible for certifying that the seat belt complies with Standard No. 209. Your letter specifically asks whether the safety belt system installed with the prisoner transport seat complies with all applicable requirements. Currently, Standard No. 208 requires an integral Type 2 (lap and shoulder) seat belt assembly at all forward-facing rear outboard seating positions, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other rear seating positions. Standard No. 208 also requires the lap belt portion of the Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at any forward-facing rear outboard seating position to have an emergency locking retractor. Thus, because the seat belt assembly for the prisoner transport seat has a manual retractor, the seat cannot be installed at a forward-facing rear outboard seating position. We note that Standard No. 208 requires emergency locking retractors to ensure improved comfort and convenience for safety belts. The purpose is to make it more likely that the typical vehicle occupant will use his or her safety belts, and also to reduce the likelihood of excessive slack in safety belts during use. You wish to use manual retractors because of special circumstances that arise when the rear seats of police vehicles are used to transport prisoners, i.e., a desire to keep the prisoners solidly restrained in the seats. However, Standard No. 208 specifies the same occupant crash protection requirements for police vehicles as other vehicles, and does not include an exception in this area. A possible solution to your problem may be to install your belt system (with manual retractors) in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208. Provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts. Your belt system would, of course, still have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209, since it would be considered a 'seat belt assembly.' Installation Prior to First Sale If a prisoner transport seat were added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Installation After First Sale After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a prisoner transport seat if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the seat did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. Thus, if a police department were to modify its own vehicles to install a prisoner transport seat, it would not be a violation of this provision, even if the original belts were replaced by belts with manual retractors. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";