Interpretation ID: nht90-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 23, 1990

FROM: GEORGE F. BALL -- GM LEGAL STAFF

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD, ESQ. -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-27-90 TO GEORGE F. BALL FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 201; PART 571.3

TEXT: General Motors Corporation is writing to obtain your interpretation of the scope and coverage of Standard 201 (49 CFR 571.201) as it applies to "interior compartment doors," and your interpretation of the definition of "interior compartment door," which is contained in 49 CFR 571.3.

General Motors plans to offer a convenience feature in one of its car lines planned for Model Year 1991. It is requested that the design details of the feature and the car line for which it is intended be treated by NHTSA as confidential business inform ation, as the information relates to a product plan for a specific model that is not yet publicly available. However, for purposes of this interpretation, the feature can be described generally as a cupholder permanently installed in the console assembl y between the driver and right front passenger. The cupholder assembly includes a pivot, which allows the cupholder to recess into the console when it is not needed. When the cupholder is recessed, the bottom face of the cupholder assembly is flush wit h the console assembly.

We are seeking your concurrence with our interpretation that the bottom face of the cupholder is not covered by @ 3.3 of FMVSS 201 because it is not an "interior compartment door" as defined by Part 571.3.

Part 571.3 provides:

Interior compartment door means any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects.

When the bottom of the cupholder is facing the driver and passenger (which is the only configuration it could be thought of as a cover), there is no storage space for personal effects. Thus, applying the language of the definition, the underside of the cupholder cannot be considered an "interior compartment door" because it is not "installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects."

Furthermore, General Motors believes this feature does not pose a hazard to occupants in crashes and is consistent with NHTSA's occupant protection interests. The purpose of the standard is to reduce the potential for injury from the interior surfaces o f the passenger compartment by encouraging the use of energy absorbing materials, rounded edges on exposed surfaces and similar designs. In its January 1988 evaluation of Standard 201, NHTSA describes the standard as:

". . . the synthesis of occupant compartment geometry, energy absorbing materials on the interior surfaces of the compartment and the integrity and controlled crush of the entire vehicle structure. It is all the parts of a vehicle - other than the re straint system - which, if well designed, combine to make the occupant compartment a potentially safe environment even in a severe crash."

(NHTSA Technical Report evaluating Standard 201, January 1988, DOT HS 807 203, page xv)

In the evaluation, NHTSA concluded that Standard 201 has been successful in improving the safety of the instrument panel, particularly for the right front passenger. NHTSA noted that much of the safety improvement is attributable to design changes made voluntarily by the manufacturers in areas not directly regulated by Standard 201, but which incorporate the instrument panel modifications contemplated by the Standard (such as use of energy absorbing materials).

Consistent with this observation, General Motors has incorporated the goals of Standard 201 in the design of the cupholder. For example, it is constructed of energy absorbing material, and with 1/8" radii on the cupholder corners facing the vehicle occu pant so as to prevent contact with sharp edges. General Motors notes that its cupholder, when in view, presents (in theory) no greater hazard than cupholders designed to be permanently fixed in place in a vehicle's console which would be allowed by FMVS S 201. In this connection, General Motors is not aware of any formal concerns expressed by NHTSA about the safety of permanently fixed cupholders. Additionally, inasmuch as the cupholder rotation is controlled by a viscous drive mechanism, it takes app roximately 3.5 seconds to open, which is substantially longer than the fraction of a second duration of an impact. This slow opening rate would negate concerns about the cupholder "flying open and striking an occupant in a crash." (See NHTSA 1/31/86 Let ter to Russ Bomhoff.)

Moreover, a review of the history of the "interior compartment door" provision of Standard 201 has persuaded General Motors that the standard was not intended to cover the bottom face of its cupholder.

When NHTSA (then the National Highway Safety Bureau) proposed to regulate the performance of glove compartment doors in 1967 (revised later in 1967 to read "interior compartment doors"), the agency received numerous public comments regarding the scope of the Standard. Many auto manufacturers and their trade associations pointed out that there was no definition of "interior compartment door" in the proposal, leading to the possible inclusion of such features as ash tray doors or covers for spare tire co mpartments. The Automobile Manufacturers Association (the predecessor to the MVMA) offered a suggested definition of "interior compartment door" which was intended to "ensure that interior compartment door assemblies not intended to come within the scop e of the Standard were not inadvertently included" in the Standard's coverage. The proposed AMA definition attempted to clarify the Standard's coverage by focusing on whether the "interior compartment door" was intended as a "closure for stowage space i ntended for personal belongings."

Although several commenters (including California Highway Patrol, the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission and the State of Illinois) urged that the Standard should cover ash trays and other such compartments, the preamble to the final rule in October 196 8 agreed that interior compartments such as ash trays and spare tire covers were not included in the Standard's coverage. The Agency adopted a variation of the industry association definition, asserting that "it was not intended that ash receivers and s pare tire compartment doors in station wagons be included in the Standard and a definition has been added to clarify the application of the Standard." (33 Fed. Reg. 15794, Oct. 25, 1968). Indeed, NHTSA/NHSB's acknowledgement in the preamble to the final rule that ash trays and spare tire compartment doors were never intended to be covered by the Standard confirms that NHTSA/NHSB was not concerned with every item that may open in the occupant compartment; rather, NHTSA/NHSB was concerned with those door s (primarily, but not limited to, glove box doors) which could themselves induce injury during a crash.

The NHTSA has had few opportunities to interpret the definition of "interior compartment door" or the pertinent provisions of Standard 201; however, those which do exist support our conclusion that the design in question is not covered. One such interpr etation was issued to Russ Bomhoff of Precision Pattern, Inc. on January 31, 1986, and concluded that fold-down tables mounted in seat backs and doors are not "interior compartment doors," presumably because they are not covers for any storage space.

A July 3, 1984 interpretation to Bruce Henderson of Automobile Importers of America concluded that a fuse box cover was also beyond the purview of Standard 201, stating that: "The definition [of interior compartment door] is meant to include such storage areas as

the "glovebox" which has a larger door which could fly open i crash, and not a portion of the vehicle's electrical system such as a fuse box, which is not used as storage space."

In an August 21, 1985, interpretation to Mazda, the Agency found an interior compartment door in connection with an expandable magazine rack; this interpretation is distinguishable because both Mazda and the Agency concluded that the magazine rack was st orage space for personal effects.

In conclusion, after a review of the Standard, its regulatory history and applicable interpretations, General Motors concludes that the new design does not constitute an "interior compartment door" within the meaning of FMVSS 201 and its associated defin ition. We respectfully request your concurrence with this conclusion by March 1.