Interpretation ID: aiam4322
Vice President
Government Affairs
Subaru of America
P.O. Box 6000
Cherry Hill
NJ 08034-6000;
Dear Mr. Utans: This responds to your letter of April 21, 1987, concerning the Part 58 Bumper Standard. You asked whether a vehicle equipped with a suspension system whose height is adjustable by the driver is tested at the manufacturer's engine- on and engine-off nominal design height.; On May 6, 1986, I responded to a similar request that you made for a interpretation. My letter (copy enclosed) stated that it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted.; Your current request for an interpretation does not provide ne arguments which indicate that our earlier interpretation was incorrect. Therefore, I must reaffirm that earlier opinion.; As we indicated in the May 6, 1986 letter, we appreciate your concer that the very reason that the adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) is partially negated by requiring bumpers to extend low enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. The letter stated, however, that if the agency were to consider establishing special provisions in Part 581 for vehicles with adjustable suspension height control systems, it would need to be done in rulemaking. See section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.; I would also note that in a meeting in March of this year, a member o my staff advised your representatives that your company could submit a petition for rulemaking requesting an amendment to Part 581. The procedures for submitting a petition for rulemaking are set forth at 49 CFR Part 552. If you should submit a petition, the agency would decide whether to grant it in accordance with statutory criteria.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel