ID: nht89-3.27

ID: nht89-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: SAMUEL KIMMELMAN -- PRODUCT ENGINEERING MANAGER IDEAL DIVISION PARKER HANNAFIN CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/22/89 FROM SAMUEL KIMMELMAN -- PARKER HANNIFIN TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA; OCC 3309

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kimmelman:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this office. I regret the delay in responding. You express your understanding that Standard No. 108 "allows vehicles with combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps to operate in either of two modes when both the hazard switch and brake switch have been actuated." You have expressed these two modes as follows:

"1. The hazard switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps.

a. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will cause the rear lamps to change from steady on, stop signal, to flashing, hazard signal.

b. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will not change the flashing lamps, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal.

2. The brake switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps.

a. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will cause the rear lamps to change from flashing, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal.

The front flashing hazard lamps will also become steady on.

b. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will not change the rear steady on lamps, stop signal, to flashing, hazard, while the front hazard lamps go from off to steady on."

You ask for confirmation of your understanding, and if it is correct, whether NHTSA is presently considering rulemaking "to specify a specific signal from the combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps when both the hazard and brake switche s are actuated."

Neither of these modes are correct, for the reasons discussed below. Initially we note that systems with combined-function lamps are those that use red lenses for the rear turn signals lamps, and not the amber lenses that Standard No.

108 allows. The second point we wish to make is that you may have confused hazard warning lamps with turn signal lamps. The basic Federal requirements for stop lamps are those of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970, which is incorporated by refe rence in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 4.2 of J586c states "When a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing." The identical provision is found in paragraph 4.4 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, which is also incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. This clearly means that a turn signal cannot be overriden by a stop lamp. In addition, you should note that re gulations of the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety forbid the optical combination of a stop lamp with a turn signal lamp unless the stop lamp function is deactivated when the turn signal lamp is activated (49 CFR 393.22(b)(2 ).

Assuming, however, that you meant hazard warning system lamps, there is no provision in Standard No. 108 for hazard warning system operation (those of SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher, February 1968, incorporated by r eference in Standard No. 108) specifying priority of operation with respect to the stop lamp system. Because paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires the stop lamps to be activated upon application of the service brakes, we interpret this as allowi ng the stop lamp system to override the hazard warning system. This opinion, of course, relates only to the rear lamps. The hazard warning system at the front of a vehicle must operate at any time the system is actuated.

In response to your question about the possibility of rulemaking, please note that the agency does not plan any rulemaking on this subject.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROBERT N. LEVIN -- HUDOCK & LEVIN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/06/89 FROM ROBERT N. LEVIN -- HUDOCK AND LEVIN TO NHTSA, RE SUN ROOFS; OCC 3625

TEXT: Dear Mr. Levin:

This responds to your letter on behalf of one of your clients, seeking information on how our law and agency regulations might affect the installation of sun roofs in vehicles. You stated that your client is an automobile repair facility. According to your letter, you recently discovered this agency's regulation (49 CFR @ 567.7) requiring vehicle alterers to affix to the vehicles they alter a label certifying that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. You as ked whether such certification labels must be affixed by your client to those vehicles on which it installs a sun roof. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Two of those safety standards could be relevant to a r epair shop's installation of sun roofs on motor vehicles. Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR @ 571.205) sets performance requirements for glazing materials installed in new motor vehicles and for new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles . Any glazing incorporated in a vehicle's sun roof would have to conform to the applicable performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. In addition, installation of a sun roof could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216, Roof C rush Resistance - Passenger Cars, (49 CFR 571.216), which sets forth strength requirements for roofs of passenger cars.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor veh icle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Because of this statutory requirement, any person or business that installs sun roofs in new motor vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 216.

The form and contents for this certification are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Any manufacturer that installs a sun roof on a new motor vehicle is required by @ 567.4 or @ 567.5 to certify that the vehicle conforms to the requirements of a ll applicable safety standards. Any person or business that adds a sun roof to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale would be required to certify the vehicle's continuing compliance with all appl icable safety standards, in accordance with @ 567.7. Such a person or entity is an "alterer" for the purposes of Part 567. (Persons or entities that modify vehicles by using a "readily attachable component" or performing a "minor finishing operation" ar e not considered "alterers." Modifications involving a readily attachable component or a minor finishing operation are instead subject to the requirements of 49 CFR @ 567.6. However, NHTSA does not consider a sun roof to be a "readily attachable componen t" nor is the installation of a sun roof a "minor finishing operation." Hence, this exception is not relevant to your client's activities.).

In addition to these certification requirements, an "alterer" is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle saf ety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards arising from the alterations, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1411-1420). I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that g enerally describes our statutory and regulatory requirements, and explains how to obtain copies of those statutes and regulations.

The certification and labeling requirements set forth in section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and in Part 567 apply to vehicles only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. Thus, once a vehicle has been purchased by a consumer, persons that modify that vehicle for its owner (e.g., by installing a sun roof) are not required to certify or label the vehicle by this agency's statutes or regulations. A different statutory provision applies to modifications made by a re pair shop to vehicles after the first purchase. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that, "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in pa rt, 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, . . ."

To comply with the obligations imposed by this "render inoperative" provision, your client should examine the sun roofs it installs and the means of installation for those sun roofs, and compare those with the

requirements of Standards No. 205 and 216. After such an examination and comparison, your client should be able to decide if the sun roof installations it performs result in any apparent violations of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act . If your client decides there is no apparent "render inoperative" violation, Federal law does not require any additional actions, such as labeling or certification, on your client's part in connection with the installation of sun roofs in vehicles afte r the first purchase of those vehicles. You should be aware that NHTSA may reexamine your client's decision and make its own determination of whether your client's sun roof installations may have violated the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/89

FROM: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- DEPUTY DIRECTOR TIRE DIVISION RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 109, PART 575.104; LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO E. H. GALLOWAY -- UNIFORM T IRE QUALITY GRADING TEST FACILITY, RE INFLATION PRESSURES FOR TRACTION GRADING PROCEDURES IN UTQGS

TEXT: Dear Sir:

On behalf of domestic manufacturers of tires, the RMA requests that you reconsider the NHTSA position taken in your August 30, 1989 letter to E. H. Galloway concerning UTQG traction test inflation pressures. Your interpretation that metric designated ti res (including P-metric tires) which are labeled for maximum pressure in both kilopascals (kPa) and common english (psi) units should be treated the same as those labeled with english values only is contrary to long standing industry interpretation and p ractice.

The following is offered in support of our request:

1. All tires designed using the metric system are required by FMVSS 109, para. S4,3,4(a) to show not only kPa pressure information, but the equivalent value in english units (psi) in parenthesis. Thus, no tires can be sold or offered for sale in the U. S. market with pressures specified only in kilopascals.

2. Load Range B alpha-numeric and numeric tires are labeled 32 psi maximum inflation pressure as required by FMVSS 109. The design test pressure for these tires is 24 psi. Standard load P-metric tires are labeled 240 kPa (35 psi) maximum inflation pre ssure as required by FMVSS 109. The design test pressure for these tires is 180 kPa (26 psi). Since P-metric tires are normally used at slightly higher pressures by consumers in accordance with vehicle manufacturers recommendations, it is logical that they be tested at slightly higher pressures.

3. Industry and private testing organizations have been testing P metric tires for UTQG traction using 180 kPa at the NHTSA test facility in San Angelo, Texas for 10 years with no prior comment from NHTSA.

4. In summary, our members sincerely believe the intent of the regulation is to test alpha-numeric tires at 24 psi and P-metric tires at 180 kPa. We ask your timely reconsideration of your August 30, 1989, interpretation to minimize confusion within th e industry.

5. NHTSA has specified variations in test pressures for UTQG treadwear and temperature tests and in FMVSS 109 bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance and high speed tests to accommodate the differences between P- metric (240 kPa) and alpha numeric /numeric (32 psi) tires. The same philosophy should apply to traction testing.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: FRAU MARGRET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: TELEFAX DATED 09/06/89 FROM MARGRET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH TO R. VAN IDERSTINE -- NHTSA RE HIGH MOUNTED STOP LAMP

TEXT: Dear Frau Schmock:

This is in reply to your FAX of September 6, 1989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, asking four questions with respect to requirements for the center highmounted stop lamp.

"1. Is it allowed to use 6 wedge-base-bulbs (3cp) on one high mounted stop lamp?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not prescribe the number of bulbs to be used in the center highmounted stop lamp. Although paragraph S5.1.1.27(e) (formerly S4.1.1.41(e)) states that "the bulb" shall be replaceable without the use of s pecial tools, the intent of this language is not to restrict the number of light sources in the center lamp, but to ensure that any and all light sources are readily replaceable. Therefore, it is acceptable in principle to use 6 bulbs. The sole limitat ion is that the maximum candlepower limitation of the lamp specified in Figure 10 must not be exceeded.

"2. SAE J186 Nov. 82 says that the effective projected luminous area shall not be less than 29 square centimeters. How would you measure the projected luminous area of a lamp with 6 bulbs?"

It is acceptable to measure the area as if the lamp contained only a single bulb. Incidentally, the November 1982 version of SAE J186 has not been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 as the requirement for center highmounted stoplamps. The correct reference is J186a, September 1977 (which does not contain the 29 square centimeter specification; that specification is expressed as 4 1/2 square inches in paragraph S5.1.1.27(a)).

"3. Must each bulb reach the required photometric values?"

No. Photometrics are a measure of the light output at specified test points measured from outside the lamp. Therefore, it is the lamp that meets the photometric requirements, and not the light source or sources.

"4. What will happen, if one bulb is defect?"

The specification for the lamp applies at the time it is sold to a retail customer. Thus, all bulbs in a lamp must be functional at that time. If a manufacturer chooses to design a lamp to meet the photometric specification when one bulb is not functio ning, that would provide an extra measure of safety that is not required by Standard No. 108. Obviously, an inoperative light source should be replaced at the owner's earliest convenience, and the requirement that the light source be replaceable without special tools is intended to add to the convenience of replacement.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WOLFRED FREEMAN -- FREEMAN & COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/22/89 FROM WOLFRED FREEMAN TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Freeman:

This is in reply to your letter to June 22, 1989, to the Administrator-Designate, General Curry, in which you "petition . . . for permission to produce a color coded (Green-Amber-Red) rear light device for all types of motor vehicles." You have designed "a workable auxiliary system that can be adopted to cars and trucks on the road."

We are treating your letter as a request for an interpretation of whether your device would be permissible for sale and use as an item of aftermarket equipment under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency. By aftermarket, we mean sale of the device for installation on cars and trucks in use, as contrasted with sales by dealers for installation on new cars. The principal regulation of this agency pertaining to motor vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard N o. 108. The only requirements it establishes for the aftermarket is for equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment specified by the standard (for example, headlamps and stop lamps). As your device is not a required item of mo tor vehicle lighting equipment, there is no Federal standard that applies to it.

However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act has a direct relationship to the acceptability of aftermarket equipment. The Act prohibits modifications by persons other than the owner of the vehicle if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment that is installed pursuant to a safety standard. Under Standard No. 108, this equipment includes stop lamps, turn signal lamps, hazard warning signals, turn signals, backup lamps, taillamps, and the license plate lamp. On large trucks, it also includes identification lamps and clearance lamps. If the potential effect of an auxiliary lighting device is to create confusion as to the intended message of any lighting device required by Standard No. 108, we regard the auxiliary light as h aving rendered the required lamp partially inoperative within the prohibition of the Act.

Thus, the question is whether your device has the potential to create confusion so that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor,

dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would be a violation of the Act. We do not conclude that the device has this potential. In your device, a steady-burning amber light would signal that the accelerator had been released (and that neither the acce lerator nor brake pedal were being applied). Amber is the recognized signal for caution. This signal will extinguish when either the accelerator (green signal) or brake pedal (red signal) is applied. Furthermore, it is steady burning whereas other rear lamps where amber is an optional color (turn signals and hazard warning signals) flash in operation. Therefore, it does not appear that your device would create confusion with required items of lighting equipment.

You must also consider whether the device would be acceptable under the laws of any State where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. However, we believe that in several Western States, there has been specific legislation that would permit your device.

We appreciate your interest in enhancing vehicle safety through improvement in rear lighting systems. We believe that improvements, such as the center highmounted stop lamp, should be introduced as standardized, mandatory lighting equipment on vehicles, rather than as optional aftermarket devices. Contrary to your understanding, our studies of a system similar to yours showed no discernible improvement in reaction time or accident avoidance over current systems.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: S. WATANABE -- MANAGER AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD., JAPAN

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This is in reply to your FAX of September 14, 1989, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, with respect to a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD), as shown in the drawing attached to your letter.

You have two questions:

"1) Does a VHAD without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope satisfy FMVSS No. 108 S7.7.5.2(a)(1)(v)?"

Paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(v) states that "Means shall be provided in the VHAD for compensating for deviations in floor slope not less than 1.2 degrees from the horizontal that would affect the correct positioning of the headlamp for vertical aim." If a VHAD is "without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope" it would not satisfy Standard No. 108.

"2) This Head Lamp is designed to be aimed vertically by means of observing only one spirit level placed on the movable reflector, as shown in the drawing. Does this structure of VHAD satisfy FMVSS No. 108 S7.7.5.2(a)(1)(v)?"

The answer is yes, if observation of the simple spirit level is coordinated with an off-vehicle measurement of floor slope. As located, the spirit level with the range of +/- 1.2 degree range will allow aim of the headlamp, even though the vehicle may n ot be level, and will

compensate for floor slopes of up to 1.2 degrees, thus fulfilling the requirement that there be compensatory means when the vehicle upon which the headlamp is mounted is not resting upon level ground.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

[DIAGRAM OF VEHICLE HEADLAMP AIMING DEVICE OMITTED]

ID: nht89-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/89

FROM: JOHN G. SIMS -- CHAMPION MOTOR COACH INC

TO: Robert F. Hellmuth -- Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 217 Your Reference No. NEF-31RSh CIR 2996

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/26/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JOHN G. SIMS -- CHMPION MOTOR COACH INC; REDBOOK A35; INTERPRETATION STANDARD 217

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hellmuth:

This is in response to your September 8, 1989 letter to Jim Nolin of our Imlay City, MI manufacturing division and a series of telephone conversations we have had with Roy Shannon of your office. This also serves as our defect and noncompliance repor t and proposed notification, in accordance with Parts 573 and 577.

After carefully reviewing our bus design, we have determined that we have not been properly labeling the passenger side exit door on our cut-away chassis buses as an "emergency exit" and we have not always been providing the necessary operating instru ctions for use of that exit. Our vehicle design has been based on the assumption that the door which is normally the main passenger entrance way or the passenger side OEM cab door would also serve as part of the required emergency exit requirements, how ever, we failed to mark the door accordingly. We, therefore, intend to voluntarily recall all affected buses in the manner described below.

The side mounted main passenger entrance door for our cut-away buses are one of six different designs, each of which provides over 536 sq. in. of exit area and which when properly marked, can serve as an emergency exit or is used in conjunction with a nother side door that can be the emergency exit. See enclosure 1. We have reviewed your charts 1 and 2 and we are in agreement with them except for chart 2 where you did not permit credit for 536 sq. in. provided by door type A (extended cab front door ) on the right side. If that credit is given then each of the identified "failures" would become "passes". We believe that if properly marked, the door will meet the requirements of "emergency exit" and therefore the credit should be given.

All cut-away buses built since 1984 and not accounted for on your charts have similar egress characteristics, specifically:

1) One emergency exit window with an open area in excess of 536 sq. in. on each side of the bus at the rear of the bus.

2) A rear emergency exit door or window with an area of at least 536 sq. in., or an emergency exit roof hatch with approximately 400 sq. in.

3) A left (driver's) side emergency exit front OEM cab door with greater than 536 sq. in.

4) A main passenger entrance/exit door with a minimum 536 sq. in. area, provided by one of the type doors described in enclosure 1. When the main passenger entrance/exit door is a rear door (designated C on enclosure 1) or a passenger side bi-fold do or in the body side (B), a OEM cab door is always provided.

Also, some buses had optional additional emergency exit windows installed at the customer's request, thereby providing at least two on each side of the bus, each with greater than 536 sq. in. opening.

The maximum seating capacity of any of these buses is 30 passengers so they will all meet the emergency exit area requirements when a passenger side door is treated as an emergency exit. Currently, all main passenger exit side doors are marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit" and none of the doors are provided with operating instructions except the rear door and the curved side door.

In addition to our cut-away buses, Champion has developed two new rail chassis buses: the "CTS/Challenger" floor plans with seating capacities ranging from 20 to 32 passengers, and the "CTS-Star" with capacity ranging from 31 to 38 passengers (see att ached brochures). The buses have the following egress characteristics:

1) One emergency exit window with an open area in excess of 536 sq. in. on each side of the bus at the rear of the bus.

2) A rear emergency exit window or roof escapt hatch with an area of at least 536 sq. in. for the window or 400 sq. in. for the hatch.

3) The CTS-Star has an additional emergency exit window with an open area in excess of 536 sq. in.

on each side of the bus towards the front of the bus.

4) Each bus has a main passenger entrance way which is marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit".

Based on the above analysis, it appears that we will need to conduct two separate recalls of buses. The first will be to recall all applicable cut-away buses in order to identify a passenger side door as an "emergency exit". That will involve provid ing a decal for the appropriate door which states "EMERGENCY EXIT", and a decal for each operating mechanism which will be placed on the door within six inches of the operating mechanism, except for the curved side door which already has operating instru ctions.

We have produced approximately 3,900 cut-away buses, of which we estimate approximately 900 do not need to be included in the recall because they were either equipped with optional added emergency exit windows or had 20 or fewer designated seating pos itions. We will prepare a list of each of the applicable cut-away buses and mail a letter and decals, to each owner of record, based on the letters a, b, and c given in enclosure 2.

The second recall will be for all CTS/Challenger buses that did not have optional additional emergency exit side windows in order to add additional emergency exits at both front sides. There are approximately 50 such buses and we will provide each ow ner of record a latter similar to that given in enclosure 3.

Two other issues raised in NHTSA's May 12, 1988 letter do not require any corrective action. The allegation that the driver door was not labeled with the words "emergency exit" is not correct. The label was located on the stanchion immediately behin d the driver's seat. It is our opinion that S5.5.1 of FMVSS 217 only requires that operating instructions be located within 6 inches of the operating mechanisms. The bases for that opinion include:

a) The words of the standard can be read that way.

b) There is no logical basis for tying in the location of "emergency exit" marking to the operating mechanisms.

c) The operating mechanisms are often located below shoulder level of seated passengers where the visibility of an "emergency exit" sign would be substantially reduced.

d) The more stringent (and clearer) requirement for school buses in S5.5.3 clearly permits separation

of the emergency exit sign and the operating instructions.

e) NHTSA's contractor called the marking "confusing" rather than in violation of the standard (Report No. 217-MSE-87-11-TR7122-11).

f) In NHTSA's 8/24/88 letter, NEF-31MPa, CIR 2996, our initial offer to relocate the emergency exit sign for clarification reasons was accepted by NHTSA as fully adequate even though the relocation would not move the sign to within 6 inches of the ope rating mechanism. Even though NHTSA now states that that letter was in error, the letter still indicates that some staff agreed with our position.

g) IN NHTSA's 6/12/84 letter, NEF-31RSh, CIR 2678.1, we were asked to supply details of "a) Location of each emergency exit identification. b) Operating instructions of the release mechanisms for the emergency exits and the distances of these instruc tions from the release mechanisms." It is plain from the way the question was worded that NHTSA considered that the required location of the emergency exit identification was separate from the location of the operating instructions and that only the latt er had to be within 6 inches of the operating mechanisms.

The other issue raised in the 5/12/88 letter was if the operating instructions for the side window emergency exits were legible to occupants standing in the aisle. However, it is our opinion that the legibility requirement of S5.5.2 applies only to t he "emergency exit" marking and not to the operating instructions. The bases for that opinion include:

a) The words of the standard can be read that way.

b) There is no practical reason to require the operating instructions to be legible until a person is about one arm's length away from the mechanisms.

c) The level of performance anticipated by the standard does not require the operating instructions to be visible even to someone in the adjacent seat, inasmuch as it is is permissible to place a sign that refers an occupant of the adjacent seat to th e operating instructions that may be located in the seat ahead.

d) Herr International, Inc., a major industry supplier of windows discussed this issue with Jeff Jiuseppe on October 23, 1989. Herr specifically stated the position that ". . . the legibility requirements of paragraph 5.5.2 require and apply to anoth er (other than operating instructions) label that identifies the emergency exit." Herr has reported to us that Jiuseppe agreed with that position along with Robert Kraus' concurrence.

Because of the above analysis, it is not our intention to include these two issues in the recalls we intend to initiate.

If further information is needed, please contact me. We will be prepared to send out our mailings on the recall upon approval from your office. The recall of the cut-away buses will be completed upon the mailing, and we will make appropriate reports to you on the progress of our repairs of the Challenger buses, as is required under the regulation.

Sincerely,

John G. Sims Governmental Affairs CHAMPION DOOR DESIGNS Door Door Operating Operational Designation Type Location Mechanism Instructions A Extended Cab OEM Door Pull handle Cab Handle and push door B Bi-fold Body None * C Rear Body RV Lock ** E Curved Side Body RV Lock *** F Single Leaf Cab Cleveland Pull handle Door Operator and push door G Bi-fold Cab Cleveland " Door Operator H Passenger- Cab OEM Door Pull handle side OEM Handle and Push door * Bi-fold door in body cannot be used for emergency exit because the operating mechanism is not located within the area required by the standard. However, whenever this door is used, a passenger side OEM cab door (H) is also used which can be made an emergency exit.

** Rear door, when used, has already been properly designated as emergency exit. Rear door used in addition to side passenger entrance/exit door (A,B,E,F, or G) and/or OEM cab door (H) which will be designated emergency exit.

*** Operating instructions already provided for RV locks.

Enclosure 1

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Cut-away Bus Owners For Main Passenger Door

Re: (Champion Serial Number )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion has determined that certain Champion buses including the one referenced above fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which has specific requirments for emergency exit capacity on buses. Your bus has sufficient egress capacity to meet those requriements but, unfortunately, the main passenger door was marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit" in the manner prescribed by the standard. Furthermore, operating instructions for the operatin g mechanisms of those doors were not provided. This may have some negative effect on a passenger's ability to egress the bus in the case of an emergency.

In order to remedy this noncompliance, we are providing you with an "emergency exit" decal that must be permanently affixed to the inside glass of the main passenger entrance/exit door. We are also providing a decal which provides the operating instr uctions for the operating mechanisms. The decal must be placed within 6 inches of where the mechanism connects to that door.

No further action is required. If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 2

Letter a

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Cut-away Bus Owners For OEM Cab Doors

Re: (Champion Serial Number )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer: This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion has determined that certain Champion buses including the one referenced above fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which has specific requirements for emergency exit capacity on buses . Your bus has sufficient egress capacity to meet those requirements but, unfortunately, one of the passenger side doors was not marked "emergency exit" in the manner prescribed by the standard. Furthermore, operating instructions for the operating mec hanisms for that door were not provided. This may have some negative effect on a passenger's ability to egress the bus in the case of an emergency.

In order to remedy this noncompliance, we are providing you with an "emergency exit" decal that must be permanently affixed to the inside panel of the OEM cab door. We are also providing a decal which provides the operating instructions for the opera ting mechanisms. The decal must be placed within 6 inches of the door handle.

No further action is required. If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 2

Letter b

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Cut-away Bus Owners For Curved Side Passenger Door

Re: (Champion Serial Number )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion has determined that certain Champion buses including the one referenced above fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which has specific requirements for emergency exit capacity on buses . Your bus has sufficient egress capacity to meet those requirements but, unfortunately, the main passenger door was marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit" in the manner prescribed by the standard. This may have some negative effect on a passenger' s ability to egress the bus in the case of an emergency.

In order to remedy this noncompliance, we are providing you with an "emergency exit" decal that must be permanently affixed to the inside glass of the main passenger entrance/exit door.

No further action is required. If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 2

Letter c

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Challenger Bus Owners

Re: (Champion Serial No. )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirement of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion Motor Coach, Inc. has determined that certain CTS/Challenger buses, including the one referenced above, fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which requires that a certain amount o f area for emergency exit be provided for each designated seating position on the bus. Champion's design was two emergency exit windows located on each side of the bus but several of the CTS/Challenger buses were erroneously produced with only one such window per side. The reduced emergency exit capacity may restrict passenger's ability to evacuate the bus in the case of emergency.

Champion will remedy this noncompliance without charge to you by replacing front windows on both sides of the bus with emergency exit windows, and provide the proper markings and operating mechanisms. This work will only take a few hours of time and will not affect the appearance or utility of the vehicles.

Please contact your selling dealer to arrange for the work to be done. The dealer should already be stocked with the necessary parts, or if not, we will provide him with those parts within 10 days of his request.

If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 3

ID: nht89-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 1989

FROM: JOSEPH PERRY

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: IMPORTING A KIT CAR

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO JOSEPH PERRY FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; IMPORT REG.) TEXT:

I would like to inquire as to the rules and regulations pertaining to the importing of a kit car. I have been in contact with the manufacturer in England and have been told that they will supply certification that the windshield supplied with the kit wi ll be in accordance with the most recent DOT specification, I believe that it complies with SA1. The other problem area with kit cars appears to be the lights. I plan on using only parts which will be purchased in the U.S. The drive train: engine, clu tch and gearbox, as well as all other parts from a 1987 Ford Mustang which are required to meet EPA regulations will be installed on the car during assembly.

The body chassis unit, possibly two boxes of used and reconditioned suspension parts (Ford Cortina MK III or IV) and interior seats and trim in other boxes. I would like to know if it is acceptable to have all window glass and doors fitted to the body u nit before shipping to best assure its arrival in one piece. The doors which are used with this car are standard production Ford and are usually fitted at the factory on all kits sold.

I believe the question that I require answered is: Will fitting the windows and doors to the body unit be considered an acceptable assembly to import a car kit? As the interior, suspension, dash, wiring and steering and wheels will not be installed.

Thank you for any assistance and information that you might be able to give me.

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?