ID: nht94-6.23

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: S. Greiff -- PARS, Passive Ruckhaltesysteme GmbH

TO: Chief Counsel -- US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To S. Greiff (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT: Per Fax: 001/202-366-3820

Your "Laboratory Test Procedure For FMVSS 208/212/219/301"

Gentleman:

PARS is a company developing occupant restraint systems for the world wide automotive industry. One of our major topics is the development of airbag systems.

For development and validation of the restraint systems we own a Barrier Impact Test Facility which was built up in 1993 new.

Our runway is 80 m (260 feet's) long. The velocity tolerance up to 60 kph is +/- 0.1 kph.

In your Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS testing, a minimum runway length of 500 feet is requested.

We would like to ask you for an interpretation of your "500 feet requirement".

It would be much appreciated, if we could get an answer by fax.

Our fax no. is: 01149/6023/942-133

Thank you very much for your efforts in advance.

Sincerely yours

ID: nht80-1.14

DATE: 02/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 18, 1979, requesting an interpretation as to whether the VIN plate samples you enclosed with your letter comply with the requirements of Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

You enclosed two proposed VIN plates in your letter, one for automobiles and one for motorcycles. The VIN plates themselves and the preprinted lettering which appears on them seem to conform to the requirement of Standard No. 115. The lettering is clear and indelible, as required by S4.3, in that it cannot be removed without damage to the surface on which it is printed. Further, the plate when riveted to the vehicle would be considered to be permanently affixed in that it cannot be removed without damage (S4.3). The type face utilized for the lettering consists of capital, cans characters with a minimum height of 4 mm as required by S4.3.1.

The letters stamped on the automobile VIN plate, "SL5322AS000001", can hardly be seen, and would not appear to meet the requirements of S4.3 and S4.4.

ID: nht81-1.13

DATE: 02/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Katsuhiko Yokoi Assistant Manager - Tech. Dept. Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. 1, Nagahata, Ochiai, Haruhi-mura Nishikasugai-gun Aichi-pref., 452 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Yokoi:

The answers to the questions in your letter of January 20, 1982, are "yes" to both questions.

1. The "adjacent layers" referenced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, paragraphs S7.3.7, are (a) the inner tube and braided layer and (b) the braided layer and outer tube.

2. The adhesion requirements are met if both the tensile strengths measured between (a) the inner tube and braided layer and (b) that between the braided layer and the outer cover are equal to or greater than 8 lbs/inch as determined using the FMVSS No. 106 procedure. It should be noted that the 8 lbs/inch value is an absolute minimum value as indicated in paragraph S8.6.4(a) standard.

A copy of FMVSS No. 106 is included for your information.

Sincerely,

Vernon G. Bloom Safety Standards Engineer

Enclosure FMVSS No. 106

ID: nht71-4.40

DATE: 11/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Truck-Lite Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1971, to Mr. Lewis Owen of this Office concerning an interpretation regarding your Truck-Lite No. 127 License plate light.

The requested interpretation concerns the 8 degree incident light angle specified in SAE J587, "License Plate Lamps," as follows:

"When a single lamp is used to illuminate the plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make an angle of less than 8 deg to the plane of the plate."

Since the 8 degree incident light angle is also a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, all license plate lamp designs must conform to it. It is our position that the angle be measured from the optical center of the lens; therefore, the Electrical Testing Laboratories' position is valid. That is, the incident light angle of your lamp, without the paint shield and when mounted as it will be installed on the vehicle, is below the 8 degree minimum requirement.

ID: nht72-1.48

DATE: 03/10/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Irvin Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1972, in which you list information you wish to label on child seats you will manufacture, and ask whether the information as presented will comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. You state that a label containing the model number, date of manufacture, and the company's name and place of business will be permanently affixed to the product, while a separate legend, containing other information, will be molded on the bottom of the seat in raised letters at least 3/32 inches high.

The labeling scheme you wish to use would conform to paragraph S4.1 ("Labeling") of Standard No. 213, providing, of course, the blank spaces for model number and date of manufacture are appropriately filled in. We would suggest, however, that that part of the molded legend beginning" . . . and there is a minimum of 19 inches vertical clearance between this seating . . .", to the end of that provision be simplified to be more understandable to an ordinary consumer.

WE ARE PLEASED TO BE OF ASSISTANCE.

ID: nht68-4.1

DATE: 08/15/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 23, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, concerning the requirements for turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers as specified by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

With certain exceptions, paragraph S3.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the use of combination lamps, reflective devices and items of associated equipment, provided the requirements for each lamp, reflective device and item of associated equipment are met. Therefore, a combination turn signal and hazard warning signal flasher may be used, provided the requirements for each signal (turn and hazard warning) are met.

You are correct in your understanding that Standard No. 108 and basically referenced SAE Standards J590 and J945 do not require operation of the flasher unit with only one signal bulb in the test circuit. The standard test circuit shown in Figure I of SAE Standard J823 indicates a minimum of two signal lamps and one pilot indicator lamp as the lamp load.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht69-2.21

DATE: 06/05/69

FROM: H.A. HEFFRON -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; CONCURRENCE OF TENNEY JOHNSON -- MVSPS

TO: G. M. Hilgendorf, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Frank Coy, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Transportation, has asked that I respond to your letter of April 16, 1969, in which you ask whether a station wagon purchased in March of 1968, equipped with two ply tires, violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

The vehicle you purchased was apparently manufactured prior to April 1, 1968, and therefore, it was not required to be equipped with tires conforming to Standard No. 109. However, even if the standards were applicable, because a tire is labeled "2-ply" it is not necessarily a non-conforming tire. Standard No. 109 does not specifically require tires to have a given number of plies. It does require that irrespective of any ply rating tires pass minimum performance tests. As to passenger cars, Standard No. 110 requires that passenger cars manufactured after April 1, 1968, (1) must be equipped with tires that comply with Standard No. 109; and (2) the vehicle must not place a load on any of the tires greater than the load capacity of the tire specified in Standard No. 109.

ID: nht95-4.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 13, 1995

FROM: B. Michael Korte, Esq. -- Law Firm of John B. Schwabe II

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Airbag Safety

ATTACHMT: 1/29/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to B. Michael Korte (A44; Std. 208)

TEXT: To Whom It May Concern:

I am a lawyer in St. Louis, Missouri who represents a client who injured in a rearend collision with another driver. The other driver's airbag deployed, but the other driver claims that she was travelling less than 15 miles per hour at impact.

I have, as best as I can, reviewed 49 CFR 571.208 and other sections of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding federal standards as to the deployment of airbags. After doing so, however, I am unable to determine whether or not any federal standard s exist as to the deployment of airbags. In other words, I am unable to determine whether or not federal regulations establish a minimum speed that vehicles must be travelling, below which an airbag will not deploy.

I would appreciate it if you would contact me and let me know whether or not any such regulations or guidelines exist. Thank you for your cooperation, courtesy and attention to this request.

ID: nht89-3.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 7, 1989

FROM: S. Kadoya -- Manager, Safety and Technology, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; George Parker -- Assoc. Administrator-Enforcement, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation of 49 CFR Parts 571 and 581 with respect to active suspension systems.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-2-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Kadoya (A36; Std. 108; Std. 111; Std. 209; Std. 208; Std. 212; Std. 219; Std. 301; Part 581

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request NHTSA's interpretation of the requirements and test conditions of the following Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS); as they apply to active suspension systems:

S108, "Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment" S111, "Rearview mirrors" S204, "Steering control rearward displacement" S208, "Occupant crash protection" S212, "Windshield mounting" S219, "Windshield zone intrusion of S301, "Fuel system integrity"

In addition, Mazda also requests an interpretation of the requirements of Part 581, "Bumper Standard," as they apply to active suspensions. Because this interpretation request covers several safety standards and because each standard may involve a parti cular person that is assigned to it, Mazda's questions regarding these individual standards have been presented in separate appendices to this letter. Each appendix addresses only one safety standard. Mazda hopes that this method will facilitate distri bution of this document to the appropriate NHTSA personnel. Mazda is writing to you both because the questions raised concern not only the interpretation of a given standard but enforcement issues as well.

Mazda is currently developing an active suspension system for possible use in future vehicle programs. The benefits of such a system have been, by now, well documented and, therefore, will not be repeated here. More importantly, Mazda is now working to establish a compliance testing protocol to the requirements of 49 CFR Parts 571 and 581. In attempting to establish this testing protocol numerous questions have arisen regarding the applicability, test conditions, and testing logistics of these Parts as they pertain to active suspension systems. In formulating this request, Mazda has reviewed past NHTSA interpretations for similar types of suspension systems. This request covers those questions that Mazda feels were not answered by previous interpr etations.

In order to obtain a meaningful interpretation of the requirements of the above listed safety standards, Mazda would like to stipulate an assumed active suspension system. For the purposes of this interpretation request the assumed system is actuated by hydraulic fluid or compressed air. An

electronic controller with feedback control regulates vehicle attitude to programmed design positions based on such inputs as:

1. vehicle speed 2. lateral acceleration 3. steering angle, and 4. suspension height

The primary sensed parameter for feedback control is suspension height. This system maintains a level vehicle body attitude, controls body pitch and roll, and effects a more aerodynamic vehicle profile at highway speeds. At vehicle speeds in excess of " Z" mph, where Z is greater than 35 mph, the suspension height is lowered by "x" mm. Control pressure is developed by a hydraulic pump or air compressor driven off the engine. Consequently, the active suspension system is only operational when the vehicl e's engine is operating. If the engine/vehicle should remain unused for a period of, say, days pressure in the control system will fall such that the suspension height may be lowered by as much as "y" mm, where "y" is greater than "x". The suspension h eight is returned to its nominal or design position for vehicle operation after such an extended period of inoperation almost immediately after starting the vehicle's engine. For convenience, let's call this assumed system, the ACS system.

Mazda is concerned about the protocol of compliance testing of vehicles equipped with an active suspension system. These concerns arise because many of the safety standards, primarily those listed above, do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during compliance testing. This has not been necessary with conventional suspension systems, and it may not be necessary with vehicles equipped with active suspension systems, if it is assumed for the purposes of compliance testing that the vehicle 's ignition switch is in the "on" position, i.e., the engine is operational and, thus, so is the system's hydraulic pump/air compressor. If this is indeed the case, the system is able to determine automatically a specified suspension height given a vehi cle speed and vehicle loading condition; just as a conventional shock absorber/spring system would determine mechanically a suspension height for these same given conditions. Unfortunately, the above listed standards do not specify explicitly the status of the vehicle's ignition switch. In most instances it is obvious that the ignition switch must be "on" for the vehicle to be able to fulfill its intended purpose. However, Mazda seeks a definitive interpretation of the status of a vehicle's ignition s witch, as well as the applicability of these standards as a function of the status of the ignition switch.

Furthermore, Mazda is concerned about the logistics of compliance testing. This is because the assumed active suspension system derives its power from the vehicle's engine when it is running, i.e., the system's ability to maintain and regulate suspension height is only possible during engine operation. For reasons of practicality and safety, a vehicle's engine is not actually operational during compliance testing. Therefore, Mazda is seeking from NHTSA guidelines by which Mazda may be able to establis h a means to maintain the intended suspension height for compliance testing purposes in the absence of engine operation. Mazda is reluctant to establish these means without such guidelines from NHTSA because it is

concerned that NHTSA may consider tests conducted in this manner to be in violation of the requirements of 49 CFR Parts 571 and 581 and, thus, invalid.

Mazda sincerely appreciates the opportunity for NHTSA's review of the issues raised in this letter and the attached appendices. Furthermore, Mazda would appreciate any further insight that NHTSA may wish to offer regarding these issues. NHTSA may also wish to consider how NCAP test procedures may be affected by the issues raised. Should NHTSA require further information or clarification of the issues raised in this letter and its attachments, please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Mr. R. Strassburger of my staff.

FMVSS No. 108, "Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment"

Prologue: NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108; at the request of a confidential applicant and dated February 12, 1985, with respect to active suspension equipped vehicles. This interpretation stated that th e requirements of FMVSS No. 108 must be meet,"...at any time in which...",lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment are to be,"...operated for its intended purpose." Consequently, headlamps, tailamps, stoplamps, the license plate lamp, and side marker lamps, must comply with the location requirements of FMVSS No. 108 when ever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" position. Conversely, reflex reflectors, and turn signal lamps that also function as hazard warning signal flashers must comply wi th 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 hour s, at maximum, only.

Question A1: Is Mazda's understanding of the subject NHTSA interpretation accurate?

Question A2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers correct?

APPENDIX B: FMVSS No. 111, "Rearview mirrors"

Prologue: Section S5 of this standard describes the requirements for passenger cars. Section S5.1.1 establishes the requirements for,"Field of view." The location of the driver's eye reference points are established pursuant to the guidelines of FMVSS No. 104," Windshield wiping and washing systems." Safety standard no. 104 references SAE recommended practice J941," Motor vehicle driver's eye range,"; which describes a procedure for locating a locus of points representative of the eye locations for 9 0th, 95th, and 99th percentile distributions of a population mix of primarily US licensed drivers. Because the location requirements of J941 are made referenced to points within the vehicles cabin, it is not anticipated that the ACS system will perturb or otherwise interfere with these measurements. However, S5.1.1 requires further that the field of view,"...with an included horizontal angle measured from the projected eye point of at least 20 degrees, and sufficient vertical angle to provide a view o f a level road surface extending to the horizon

beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle..." As was stated in the cover letter to this appendix, the ACS system suspension height may fall by "y" mm if the vehicle is not used for a period of days. In a previous NHTSA i nterpretation of FMVSS No. 108, at the request of a confidential applicant and dated February 12, 1985, NHTSA stated that,"...the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose." Using this "intended purpose" argument Mazda's interpretation of FMVSS No. 111 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.

Question Bl: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements FMVSS No. 111 with respect to the state of the vehicle's ignition switch correct?

Question B2: For the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, what means of maintaining the intended suspension height for a given vehicle speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA?

Appendix C: FMVSS No. 204, "Steering control rearward displacement"

Prologue: Section S4 of this standard specifies the compliance parameter for this standard. Section S5 specifies the testing conditions to determine compliance with this standard. Section S5.1 specifies that the vehicle be loaded to its unloaded vehicl e weight. Section S5.5 specifies that the vehicles fuel tank be filled with Stoddard solvent to any capacity between 90 and 95 percent of the total capacity of the tank. Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of this standard is that they are to be met when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the "on" position only. Furthermore, Mazda interprets the vehicles suspension height pursuant to S5.1 and S5.5 to be the intended suspension height for the vehicle given the conditions of S4, i.e., 30 mph veh icle speed and steered wheels are positioned straight ahead.

Question C1: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 correct?

Question C2: For the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 204, what means of maintaining the intended suspension height for a given vehicle speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA?

Appendix D: FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection"

Prologue: This standard establishes performance criteria for the protection of vehicle occupants involved in crashes. Section S5 of this standard establishes occupant crash protection requirements for a range of crash scenarios. Section S8 of this stan dard specifies the testing conditions to be used for frontal, lateral, and rollover compliance testing. Section S8.1.1(d), "Vehicle test attitude," specifies the procedure for determining the vehicle test attitude that is to be used for testing. Specif ically, 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 ope ning, 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 load ed 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 load ed 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 like have an "as delivered" height greater than the "fully loaded" height. However, this fact is of no importance as S8.1.1(d) states that t he 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 ig nition in the "on" position only.

Section S8.2.7 specifies additional test 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." Mazda interprets the meaning of "normal attitude" to be that vehi cle attitude which is intend 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.

Appendix D (con't): FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant crash protection" Question D1: Is Mazda's interpretation of the definition of the "fully loaded condition" correct with respect to the condition of the ignition switch?

Question D2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the irrelevance of the relative relationship between the "as delivered" and "fully loaded" conditions correct?

Question D3: Is Mazda's interpretation of the meaning of "between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude" correct?

Question D4: For the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 208, what means of maintaining the intend suspension height for a given vehicle speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA? Question D5: Is Mazda's interpretation of the meaning of "normal attitude" correct?

Appendix E: FMVSS No. 212, "Windshield mounting"

Prologue: Customarily, compliance testing to the requirements of this standard is conducted concurrently with compliance testing to the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Therefore, many of the test protocol issues that might be raised in thi s instance have already been raised in Appendix D. Moreover, NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems at the request of Mazda. This interpretation was issued on August 10, 1982. The central premise of NHTSA's interpretation was that the subject vehicle could possibly be operated at two distinct suspension heights at any given vehicle speed. In that instance such a situation was possible because the suspension height was manua lly determined, i.e., established by the operator, thereby justify compliance testing with the vehicle's suspension height adjusted to any position possible or at minimum to the worst case position. However, the ACS system described in the cover letter to these appendices states that the vehicle's suspension height is determined by an on-board electronic controller and not by the vehicle operator. Consequently, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehicle speed an d loading condition as is the case with conventional suspension systems. Therefore, 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 te sted at the intended suspension height given the statutory speed and loading requirements. Lastly, the final issue is whether the requirements of FMVSS No. 212 must be met with the vehicles ignition in the "on" or "off" condition, or both. Using a "int ended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of FMVSS No. 212 are to met whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition only.

Question E1: Is Mazda's interpretation that NHTSA previously issued interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems not applicable in this instance given the facts presented?

Question E2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 212 with respect to the state of the vehicle ignition switch correct?

Appendix F: FMVSS No. 219, "Windshield zone intrusion"

Prologue: Customarily, compliance testing to the requirements of this standard is conducted concurrently with compliance testing to the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Therefore, many of the test protocol issues that might be raised in this instance have already been raised in Appendix D. Moreover, NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems at the request of Mazda. This interpretation was issued on August 10, 1982. The central premise of NHTSA's interpretation was that the subject vehicle could possibly be operated at two distinct suspension heights at any given vehicle speed. In that instance such a situation was possible because the suspension height was manual ly determined, i.e., established by the operator, thereby justify compliance testing with the vehicle's suspension height adjusted to any position possible or at minimum to the worst case position. However, the ACS system described in the cover letter t o these appendices states that the vehicle's suspension height is determined by an

on-board electronic controller and not by the vehicle operator. Consequently, 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. Therefore, 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 statutory speed and loading require ments. Lastly, the final issue is whether the requirements of FMVSS No. 219 must be met with the vehicles ignition in the "on" or "off" condition, or both. Using a "intended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of FMVSS No. 219 are to met whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition only.

Question F1: Is Mazda's interpretation that NHTSA previously issued interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems not applicable in this instance given the facts presented?

Question F2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 219 with respect to the state of the vehicle ignition switch correct?

Appendix G: FMVSS No. 301, "Fuel system integrity" Prologue: Customarily, compliance testing to the requirements of this standard is conducted concurrently with compliance testing to the frontal crash and lateral requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Therefore, many of the test protocol issues that might be ra ised in this instance have already been raised in Appendix D. Moreover, NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems at the request of Mazda. This interpretation was issued on Augus t 10, 1982. The central premise of NHTSA's interpretation was that the subject vehicle could possibly be operated at two distinct suspension heights at any given vehicle speed. In that instance such a situation was possible because the suspension heigh t was manually determined, i.e., established by the operator, thereby justify compliance testing with the vehicle's suspension height adjusted to any position possible or at minimum to the worst case position. However, the ACS system described in the co ver letter to these appendices states that the vehicle's suspension height is determined by an on-board electronic controller and not by the vehicle operator. Consequently, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehi cle speed and loading condition as is the case with conventional suspension systems. Therefore, 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 s hould be tested at the intended suspension height given the statutory speed and loading requirements. Lastly, the final issue is whether the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 must be met with the vehicles ignition in the "on" or "off" condition, or both. U sing a "intended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 are to met whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition only.

Section S7.3 of this standard specifies that the test conditions that are to be used during rear moving barrier crash testing are those specified by

section S8.2 of FMVSS No. 208. The issues that might be raised regarding S7.3, therefore, have already been raised in Appendix D.

Question G1: Is Mazda's interpretation that NHTSA previously issued interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems not applicable in this instance given the facts presented?

Question G2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 with respect to the state of the vehicle ignition switch correct?

Appendix H: 49 CFR Part 581, "Bumper Standards" Prologue: The stated scope and purpose of this standard is, "...to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of passenger motor vehicles from low speed collisions." NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to a djustable height suspension systems. One of these interpretations was issued by NHTSA on February 12, 1985 at the request of a confidential applicant. Another interpretation was issued May 16, 1986 at the request of Subaru of America. In the interpreta tion issued on February 12, 1985, NHTSA states,"...the vehicle is required to meet the pendulum test (581.6(b)) of Part 581 in any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates, and the barrier test (581.6(c)) of Part 581 when the engine is idling." In the subsequent interpretation of 581.6, issued on May 16, 1986, NHTSA states, "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 crite ria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted." Consequently, with respect to 581.6(c) these interpretations appear to be in conflict when applying the regulations of Part 581 to the ACS system in that the 1985 interpretation states that the damage criteria must be met at IDLE while the 1986 interpretation states that the damage criteria must be met at ANY height position to which the system can be adjusted. Moreover, the 1985 interpretation infers that the damage criteria for 581 .6(c) must be met when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the "on" condition only. Furthermore, the 1985, with respect to 581.6(b), and 1986 interpretations seem to be in conflict with this standards stated purpose to reduce physical damage to motor ve hicles in LOW speed collisions by requiring bumpers to meet the damage criteria of 581.5 at,"...any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates..."

Question H1: Could NHTSA please provide an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581 with respect to the ACS system?

ID: 2787y

Roger C. Fairchild, Esq.
Shutler and Low
14500 Avion Parkway
Suite 300
Chantilly, VA 22021-1101

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

This responds to your request for my opinion of whether a particular vehicle (the Pinzgauer) would be considered a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. When NHTSA previously considered this question, we stated in a March 25, 1982 letter to Mr. Leonard Fink that the Pinzgauer would be considered to be a motor vehicle, based on the information that was available to the agency at that time. However, that letter also stated that the agency would be willing to reconsider this conclusion if additional information were provided regarding the vehicle's marketing, advertising, and actual use. Your recent letter set forth three additional factors that you suggested might lead the agency to change its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer was a motor vehicle. As explained in detail below, this agency reaffirms the previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle". Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Vehicles such as the Pinzgauer are not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, the Pinzgauer is obviously designed to have substantial off-road capabilities, as evidenced by high ground clearance, deep water fording capabilities, and all-wheel drive. According to its manufacturer, 95 percent of the annual production of Pinzgauers is purchased by armed forces worldwide. These factors suggest that the Pinzgauer should not be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, the available information shows the Pinzgauer is suitable for use on-road. The vehicle has a top speed of nearly 70 miles per hour. Page 4 of Enclosure 1 of your letter shows that the Pinzgauer is equipped with turn signals and states that the power steering minimizes steering effort "both in difficult terrain and when parking." Page 4 of Enclosure 3 with your letter describes the serviceability of the Pinzgauer "with ordinary on- and off-road usage." These factors suggest that the vehicle is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, which suggests that it should be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether something is a motor vehicle, when the vehicle has both on-road and off-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, NHTSA has applied five factors to reach its conclusion. These factors are:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

When NHTSA previously considered whether the Pinzgauer should be considered a motor vehicle, the available information regarding these factors showed that the manufacturer had equipped the vehicle with side marker lights, the manufacturer expected the vehicle to be used on-road, and that it would be sold by dealers that also sell vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles.

In your letter, you enclosed some additional information and brochures from the manufacturer that show the manufacturer continues to expect Pinzgauers to be used both on- and off-road. Since the manufacturer does not now expect to sponsor the vehicle's sale in the U.S., no information is available on the anticipated dealers. The additional information enclosed with your letter did not specifically address any factors on which no information was previously available to NHTSA. Hence, the agency has no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle.

You suggested three reasons that might lead the agency to reverse its previous conclusion. First, you suggested that the 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer has a unique body configuration which distinguishes it from typical, on-road vehicles and makes it particularly well suited to off-road use. You correctly noted that the agency's 1982 letter addressed both the 4-wheeled and 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. However, for the purposes of this analysis, there is no attribute of the 6-wheeled version that would lead the agency to conclude that it should be classified differently than the 4-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. Many vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles have 6 wheels. In all other respects, the 4- and 6-wheeled Pinzgauers have similar on-road capabilities, including a top speed of more than 65 miles per hour.

Second, you suggested that NHTSA concluded that the Unimog is not a "motor vehicle" in a February 7, 1984 letter, and that the Unimog and Pinzgauer are comparable vehicles. In the February 7, 1984 letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber to which you refer, NHTSA stated that it had no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Unimog was not a "motor vehicle." NHTSA also noted that this conclusion was based upon the assumptions that Unimog vehicles would continue to be marketed through dealers of farm machinery and heavy equipment and that Unimog vehicles would have a label affixed stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use. In other words, the information available for Unimog (especially regarding factors number 4 and 5 above) was sufficient to lead the agency to conclude that it was not a motor vehicle, even though Unimogs are operationally capable of on-road use. By way of contrast, either no information is available for Pinzgauer vehicles regarding the five factors identified above or, if information is available for a factor, it suggests that the Pinzgauer should be treated as a motor vehicle. Since the Pinzgauer is operationally capable of on-road use, and there is no indication that the manufacturer does not intend for it to spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA reaffirms its previous statement that these vehicles appear to be "motor vehicles," within the meaning of the Safety Act.

Third, you suggested that NHTSA's 1982 conclusion did not include a consideration of the primary design intent of the Pinzgauer for military purposes and the high percentage of its total sales to the military. NHTSA's 1982 conclusion and this reconsideration both are addressed only to the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer. The military versions of the Pinzgauer would not be subject to the safety standards if their sales satisfied 49 CFR 571.7(c). In both the 1982 and this examination of whether the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer are motor vehicles, the agency fully considered the substantial off-road capabilities of these vehicles. However, absent indications that the manufacturer does not intend the Pinzgauer to spend substantial periods of time on-road, NHTSA concluded in 1982, and reaffirms at this time, that the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer appear to be "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#571 d:l2/l4/90