ID: aiam3251

Dear Mr. Gerken: This responds to your letter of March 27, 1980, to Mr. Stephen Oesch o my staff concerning Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. You asked whether the labels and installation diagrams required by the standard must comply with Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. In addition, you asked whether an upholstery tag, required by State law, attached to the seat must comply with Standard No. 302.; Section 5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires 'each material used in a chil restraint system' to conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 302. Because the label, installation diagram and tag materials are affixed to the child restraint, they would have to comply with Standard No. 302.; Section 4.2.2 of Standard No. 302 provides that 'any material tha adheres to other materials at every point of contact' shall meet the performance requirements of the standard 'when tested as a composite with the other materials.' Thus, if the label, diagram and tag are affixed to the plastic shell of the restraint so that they adhere to the shell at every point of contact, they would be tested with the shell. If the label, diagram and tag do not adhere at every point of contact, section 4.2.1 requires them to meet the performance requirement of the standard when tested separately.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2606

Dear Mr. Flesch: This responds to your letter to the President dated February 8, 1977 which has been forwarded to our office by the Department of Justice. You are concerned whether there is a Federal law that prohibits the replacement of a single part of a seat belt assembly, as opposed to replacement of the entire assembly.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issue safety standards and regulations that govern the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies to be used both as original equipment in passenger cars and as aftermarket replacement equipment. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 209. There is no requirement in Standard No. 209, however, that would preclude the replacement or repair of a broken component in a seat belt assembly.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, *et*. *seq*.), 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, none of the persons mentioned could replace or repair a component of a seat belt assembly if that action would destroy the compliance of the assembly with Standard No. 209. Violation of this section of the Safety Act could result in the imposition of civil penalties up to $1,000.; Perhaps it is General Motors' policy not to replace or repair component of a seat belt assembly because of the possibility that the assembly might, thereby, be 'rendered inoperative.' From the point of view of General Motors, replacement of the entire assembly with a new, certified, assembly might be a safer practice. General Motors is certainly entitled to operate under such a policy. The policy is not, however, a Federal law.; Sincerely, Joseph J Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht71-4.14

DATE: 09/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Automobiles, Peugeot

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We appreciate the opportunity to further discuss the questions you raised during our visit of June 9 and 10. I will try to answer each question as fully as possible.

1. It would be unfortunate if the effect of our standards on domestic passenger car production in Europe is to raise costs to the point where significant numbers of people are forced to rely on cheaper and more dangerous vehicles such as motor driven cycles. However, we do not think this result likely in the light of the continuing demand for inexpensive passenger cars and in the absence of legislation by the European nations to compel adoption of the costlier safety features.

2. We are aware of the concern of foreign manufacturers with the effects of the standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will attempt to be as flexible as possible, consistent with its mandate to insure the safety of vehicles sold in the United States. The discretion allowed the agency to exempt vehicles from a standard is a matter that Congress will have to decide. At the present time, the exemption authority given the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by the 1966 Act has expired, and we are therefore unable to agree to any exemptions unless Congress chooses to recreate the exemption authority in some form.

3. In the development of standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration attempts to evaluate their effects on foreign as well as domestic manufacturers. As you are aware, it is sometimes not possible to reconcile all points of view on a standard, but we would urge you to make every effort to set forth your position on proposed rules during the comment period.

4, 5. Your comments on the proper height for bumpers and the problem of the license plate location have been considered in the context of the rulemaking on Standard No. 215. The amendment issued on June 22, 1971, should serve to lessen the height problem to some degree, and on the basis of present data we regard the height thereby established as reasonable for the overall vehicle population. The share of the license plate itself is determined by the individual states and is not within our authority.

6. The crash characteristics which you suggest for a vehicle's front end seem reasonable, but because they fall beyond the scope of the present rulemaking on Standard No. 215, any consideration of them will have to be deferred. Although we realize that the front seats can supplement the side structure of a car in a side impact, the question as to whether the seats should be retained was considered in the development of the final version of Standard No. 214, and it was determined at that time that the standard would provide a more reliable measure of side strength if the tests were conducted with the seats removed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is still of that opinion, although it would consider any additional information presented in support of a petition to amend the standard to allow retention of the seats.

7. On the subject of prospective standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is currently preparing a new version of the program plan for motor vehicle safety standards. The plan is intended to map the course of rulemaking for the next several years, and should serve to answer most of your questions on timing. We expect to announce the new plan in the very near future.

I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions. If not, or if additional questions arise, do not hesitate to ask us.

ID: aiam2780

Dear Mr. Ratz: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*, would be applicable to a Type I seat belt assembly used as a securement device for wheelchairs in an urban transit bus.; Safety Standard No. 209 is an equipment standard that is applicable t any seat belt manufactured for use on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses. Therefore, the seat belt in question would have to comply with the performance requirements of that standard.; Safety Standard No. 210, however, only specifies requirements for sea belt anchorages at the driver's position on buses. Since the assembly you are concerned with would be at a passenger seating position in the bus, it would not have to comply with the anchorage requirements of Standard No. 210.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2779

Dear Mr. Ratz: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*, would be applicable to a Type I seat belt assembly used as a securement device for wheelchairs in an urban transit bus.; Safety Standard No. 209 is an equipment standard that is applicable t any seat belt manufactured for use on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses. Therefore, the seat belt in question would have to comply with the performance requirements of that standard.; Safety Standard No. 210, however, only specifies requirements for sea belt anchorages at the driver's position on buses. Since the assembly you are concerned with would be at a passenger seating position in the bus, it would not have to comply with the anchorage requirements of Standard No. 210.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3081

Dear Senator Boren: This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Weaver, regarding problems he is having with the automatic belt system on his Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, the belt system does not properly fit Mr. Weaver, and Volkswagen has stated it cannot lower the driver's seat to correct the problem because of Federal regulations.; Before getting into the details of this matter, I want to express m admiration for Mr. Weaver in his efforts to obtain the benefits of his safety belts. It is discouraging to hear that a person wishing to use his belts is unable to do so. However, I must stress that we have no authority to compel a manufacturer to alter a vehicle in a situation like this. The most we can do is attempt to clarify whether it is federal law or other factors that led to Volkswagen's reluctance to make the alterations desired by Mr. Weaver.; The discussion in the letter you received from Mr. Kenneth Adams Volkswagen's Washington representative, needs some clarification. Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* (49 CFR 571.208), requires passenger cars to be equipped with safety belts that adjust to fit drivers ranging in size from the 5th-percentile adult female (weighing about 102 pounds) to a 95th-percentile adult male (weighing about 215 pounds). Therefore, the regulation requires safety belts to fit *at least* 90 percent of the driving population. Of course, nothing prohibits manufacturers from designing their belts to fit 100 percent of the population, and the agency encourages manufacturers to do so. The standard is only a minimum requirement, allowing manufacturers some leeway because of unusual body sizes at either end of the spectrum.; Mr. Adams also stated in his letter to you that lowering the seat woul change the performance characteristics of Volkswagen's belt system and would make it necessary 'to begin the entire testing process for certification again.' This statement too requires clarification. At the present time, Safety Standard No. 208 does not require safety belts as installed in motor vehicles to meet dynamic performance requirements. Dynamically testing safety belts would entail restraining a test dummy with a vehicle's safety belts and testing their performance by crashing the vehicle into a test barrier. In such testing, the position of the seat in relation to the belts would be important. However, the current requirements do not involve testing safety belts inside the vehicle. They require that the belts meet certain laboratory tests and that belts capable to (sic) passing those tests be installed in new vehicles.; Further, regardless of the type of performance standards involved lowering the seat of a used vehicle could not raise any question about recertification. Certification relates to new vehicles exclusively. The only question which lowering the seat would pose under our statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, would be whether lowering the seat would cause equipment installed pursuant to Federal safety standards to no longer be in compliance. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative safety equipment. If this prohibition is the concern of Mr. Adams of Volkswagen, perhaps he can clarify for you constituent how Volkswagen believes lowering the seat would violate that prohibition. Mr. Adams does not state that lowering the seat would preclude the belt system from adjusting to fit the range of people specified in the standard.; It may be that Volkswagen's reluctance to lower the seat stems from concern about products liability. Lowering the seat could very well alter the performance of the Volkswagen automatic belt system.; In an effort to promote further clarification of Volkswagen's position I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Adams. The only further thing I can do is suggest that Mr. Weaver contact Mr. Adams again and obtain his reaction to my letter. Perhaps we can then see what other alterations are available. I hope some adjustment can be made to accommodate Mr. Weaver.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook

ID: nht72-1.41

DATE: 07/11/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1972, in which you requested our interpretation of the phrase in S4.3.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 which states that the angle of the belt is to be measured from the seating reference point to the "nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage".

The language in question was adopted in response to petitions for reconsideration of the amended rule as published in 1970 (35 F. R. 15298, 35 F. R. 18116). Several petitioners had stated that measuring the angle from the seating reference point to the anchorage, as the standard then specified, would not accurately reflect the true angle of the belt because of the intervention of rigid attachment hardware between the anchorage and the webbing. The section was therefore amended to refe to the point at which the belt touched such attachment hardware.

In the diagram which you provide of a seat belt system in which the buckle is attached to the seat by means of a rigid bracket, we would consider the buckle itself to be a part of the attaching hardware. The contact point would therefore lie on the interface between the tongue and the (Illegible Word) at the point nearest the seating reference point.

It does not appear from Figures 2 and 3 of your letter that any of the designated angles correspond exactly to the angle that should be measured under S4.3.1.3. In both figures the angle would be determined by the line between the reference point and the nearest point to it on the forward end of the buckle.

Please advise us if you have further questions on this point.

ID: nht75-6.16

DATE: 06/13/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: S.L. Terry, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

S. L. Terry, Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs Chrysler Corporation P. O. Box 1910 Detroit, MI 48231

Dear Mr. Terry:

This responds to your letter of May 13, 1975, requesting confirmation that Chrysler's new unibelt shoulder/lap belt system with a "window shade" tension adjustment feature satisfies the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, that the lap belt portion "adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor." You describe the seat belt assembly as of the single retractor, continuous loop type, with a B-pillar-mounted "window shade" emergency-locking retractor, and a one-way locking device in the buckle tip which prevents return of webbing to the lap portion from the torso portion when the belt assembly is in use.

Section 7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion "by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems as long as the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap bolt portion to prevent excessive slack. Because of the submarining danger of a slack lap belt, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.

One restriction, set forth in a letter to Renault, Inc., on September 25, 1972, is that "the friction in the buckle is low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder bolt cinches up the lap belt."

We would like to clarify that letter by emphasizing that, to conform to the requirements, the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as automatically adjustable." Thus, it is the manufacturer who determines whether or not the particular bolt system is designed to satisfy the requirements of the standard. In your May 16, 1975, demonstration to Messrs. Hitchcock, Nelson, Medlin, Smith, Breedon, and Ziegler of the NHTSA, we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of that continuous loop system.

The other restriction was set out in a March 9, 1973, letter to General Motors. It limits the use of "comfort clips" on the upper torso portion of continuous loop systems. The letter distinguishes continuous loop systems from systems that have separate lap and shoulder belt retractors. It concludes that "a comfort clip would be acceptable under S7.1.1 of the standard, so long as the shoulder belt is otherwise capable of adjustment as required by S7.1.1."

This restriction has since been the subject of an NHTSA proposal (Docket No. 74-32, Notice 1) which would restrict the use of "a device used to limit retractive action of an emergency-locking retractor for the comfort of the occupant" to seat belt assemblies that have "an individually adjustable lap belt." Chrysler's response to that proposal and stated plan to introduce a continuous loop belt system with a "window shade" device in the new 1976 model four-door compact car assume that NHTSA intends to permit "belt tension relief" devices on all continuous loop systems. I would like to point out that this issue is still outstanding in Docket No. 74-32.

Sincerely,

(original stamped by)

James B. Gregory Administrator

May 13, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20591

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Chrysler Corporation plans to introduce a new unibelt shoulder/lap belt system with a "window shade" tension adjustment feature for the front seat outboard seating positions during the 1976 model year. We plan to introduce this system initially in the 4-door models of our all-new compact car, and later in the model year incorporate the system in all of our other 1976 model 4-door cars, including station wagons. As indicated in my letter dated November 7, 1974 (commenting on Docket 74-32, Notice 1, based on discussions with the Administration), we understand that a unibelt system with a "window shade" adjustment feature will conform to current MVSS 208 requirements provided it otherwise complies with MVSS 209. Because the modifications to proposed Docket 74-32 are still pending and we have not yet received written confirmation of our understanding, we hereby request that the Administration review our unibelt system and provide us with written response indicating that it complies with the regulations. Since we must make commitments for final tooling almost immediately, we request your review as soon as possible.

The system consists of a continuous webbing loop with a vehicle deceleration sensitive emergency-locking retractor located in the B-pillar. The webbing is routed from the retractor to a roof rail mounted turning loop, across the occupant's upper torso to the buckle tip, across his lap and down to the floor anchor. To encourage belt usage by making them more comfortable to wear, we have incorporated a "window shade" feature in the retractor to relieve objectionable shoulder belt tension. A slight extension of the shoulder belt provides slack in the shoulder belt; a second extension of the belt releases the slack.

To maintain lap tension when shoulder belt tension has been relieved by using the "window shade" in the retractor, we have incorporated a one-way locking device in the buckle tip. This permits the belt webbing to be pulled through the buckle tip by the retractor, but prevents webbing movement in the opposite direction. It also permits the user to tighten the lap belt beyond the tension created by the retractor, if he likes a snug lap belt.

We believe that this system is a significant step forward in the design of seat belt systems. Initially, it makes the belt buckle tip easier to find since it normally stows near the roof rail rather than near the floor between the door and seat. It is easier to buckle up because the motion required by the occupant to extend the webbing from the single retractor is more nearly linear. After buckling up, the occupant can easily relieve shoulder belt tension by moving forward slightly and then returning to his normal sitting position. If the occupant wishes, greater tension can be placed and maintained in the lap belt by pulling the shoulder belt upward. Moreover, this system is automatically and conveniently stored by tripping the "window shade." It also eliminates the lap belt cinch- up problem associated with auto-locking retractors which many customers find objectionable. Because this new design will encourage the use of seat belts and as we are able to work out the problems of application of the system of other car models, we expect to offer this system on our 2-door models.

Based on our interpretation of the requirements of MVSS 208 and MVSS 209, and our understanding of the letters of interpretation issued by the NHTSA to Renault dated September 25, 1972, and to General Motors dated March 27, 1975, we believe our new system fully complies with the applicable requirements of both standards. With respect to the issue raised in those letters, we have designed the one-way lock-up feature in the buckle tip of our system to allow self-adjustment of the lap belt by the retractor. When the occupant does not snug the lap belt, our testing experience indicates that normal occupant motions will cause the slack in the system to be taken up by the retractor.

Based upon this description of our new unibelt lap/shoulder belt system that we plan to use during the 1976 model year, we request a letter of confirmation of our interpretation that this system complies with the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. If considered desirable, we would be happy to demonstrate this new system in one of our vehicles.

Very truly yours,

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

(original signed by)

S. L. Terry Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs

/ms

ID: aiam4798

Dear Mr. Kadoya: This responds to your request for interpretations o 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. NOTE: THIS IS PART II OF AN INTERPRETATION LETTER TOO LONG TO BE ACCEPTED INTO THE DATABASE AS IS. PART I COVERS COMPLIANCE ISSUES (PART 571), AND STANDARDS 108, 211 AND 204. ITS KEY NUMBER IS 5023. 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 test 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 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 S8.1.1(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' 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 S8.1.1(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 interpretation 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 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 you 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 S8.1.1(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 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 an 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 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 S8.1.1(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 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 S8.1.1(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 S5.8.8.1. 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. 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 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 S8.1.1(d). As discussed above, attitude for vehicles equipped with variable height suspension systems is determined under section S8.1.1.(d) using the actual 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 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. 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 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. 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 is situations where the vehicle is operating. Looking at the three standards as a whole, were 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 thought 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. 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 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 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 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 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 adjusted so that its bumper height resulted in bumper mismatch with other vehicles in the event of low speed collision, 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 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 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 fixed 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 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, event 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 collision, 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 occupant 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 requirements 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 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 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 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 pendulum 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. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4937

"Dear Ms. Russell: This responds to your letter of October 24, 1991 concerning Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You stated that Glaval Corporation, which you represent, recently notified NHTSA of its intention to conduct a notification and remedy campaign to respond to 'an apparent noncompliance with the safety belt anchorage strength requirements as they apply to the rear bench seat in Glaval vans.' According to your letter, these seats contain three designated seating positions, and each seat belt anchorage is 'mounted on the seat, not the floor.' You stated that in the course of evaluating potential remedies, you became aware of an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter sent by this agency to Mr. R.W. Schreyer of Transportation Manufacturing Corporation, in which the agency stated that only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing. Because the Glaval van bench seat anchorages were tested simultaneously in NHTSA's compliance test, you asked the following questions: 1. Consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, should the seat-mounted anchorages of the Glaval bench seat have been loaded sequentially in NHTSA's test? If so, how does NHTSA's test on the Glaval bench seat, where the loads were applied simultaneously, affect NHTSA's tentative conclusion of noncompliance? You are correct that, consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing under current requirements. However, based on our understanding of the Glaval design, and as discussed below, we consider the anchorages in the Glaval van to be floor-mounted. Therefore, the Schreyer interpretation is not relevant to whether the Glaval van is in compliance with Standard No. 210. Based on photographs included in the Final Report of FMVSS 210 Compliance Testing of 1991 Glaval Van (Report No. 210-GTL-91-003), it appears that the seat belts are attached to a bar which runs along the floor behind the bench seat. The bar is directly mounted to floor brackets which run along each side of the seat. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions are simultaneously tested. The term 'seat belt anchorage' is defined in section S3 as 'the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure.' In the design at issue, the seat belt anchorage, or provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure, includes the seat belt bar. Since the seat belt bar is mounted to the floor by means of the two brackets along the sides of the seat, the seat belt anchorage is 'floor-mounted.' I note for your information that, on April 30, 1990, the agency published a final rule amending Standard No. 210 to, among other things, require simultaneous loading of all anchorages common to the same occupant seat. This amendment is effective on September 1, 1992. 2. Since Standard 207 requires simultaneous loading of the forces required by Standard 207 along with those required by Standard 210, does the Schreyer interpretation mean that, for a bench seat with seat-mounted anchorages, the proper loading for a test pursuant to FMVSS 207 should be 20 times the seat weight plus the proper load for one designated seating position on the bench seat? Your understanding of the Standard No. 207 test is correct. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ";