Interpretation ID: nht95-7.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1995

FROM: Kenneth N. Weinstein -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, NHTSA

TO: Lewis H. Goldfarb, Esq. -- Assistant General Counsel, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: Compliance of MY 1995 Cirrus/Stratus with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210

ATTACHMT: 12/12/95 letter from Lewis H. Goldfarb to Kenneth Weinstein

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1995, which transmitted a memorandum containing Chrysler Corporation's legal position on whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may rely on a July 11, 1995 compliance test to demonstrate that model year 1995 Chrysler Cirrus and Dodge Stratus vehicles fail to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210.

In the July 10 test, NHTSA's contractor placed the pelvic body block several inches forward from the seat back. n1 In that test, and in subsequent tests conducted by Chrysler with the body block in that location, the rear seat anchorage in the Cirrus/Stratus failed before the 3000 pound test load set out in S5.2 of Standard No. 210 was reached. Chrysler has submitted a summary report describing a recent test in which the anchorage did not fail when the body block was positioned against the seat back, which is the position that Chrysler customarily uses when it tests its vehicles to ascertain whether they comply with Standard No. 210. It is Chrysler's position that since "neither the procedures specified in the standard nor the published laboratory test protocol specify the location of the body block," its test with the body block against the seat should be accepted by NHTSA as demonstrating compliance with Standard No. 210.

n1 Your memorandum states on several occasions that the body block in the NHTSA test was placed four inches in front of the seat back. This distance represents the post-test location of the body block. In fact, the post-test photographs reveal that the floor structure had been distorted during the test procedure, thus indicating that the body block was less than four inches from the seat back prior to the test.

The agency agrees that neither the standard itself nor the laboratory test procedure developed by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies a precise distance that the body block is to be placed in front of the seat back. However, rather than support Chrysler's argument, this fact demonstrates that the failure of the Cirrus anchorages to withstand the test loads in NHTSA's test reflects a noncompliance with the standard. In the preamble issued by the agency in connection with its 1991 reconsideration of several amendments to Standard No. 210, NHTSA reiterated its longstanding view of a manufacturer's compliance responsibilities under these circumstances (56 FR 63676, 63677; December 5, 1991):

As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions.

In the case of the strength requirements in Standard No. 210, nothing in the language of the standard suggests that the strength requirements were only to be measured with the safety belt or other vehicle features at certain adjustment positions. Indeed, the purpose of the standard is to reduce the likelihood that an anchorage will fail in a crash. To serve this purpose, the anchorage must be capable of meeting the strength requirements with the safety belt and other vehicle features at any adjustment, since those features could be at any adjustment position during a crash.

The quoted statement, which was made in response to assertions by auto manufacturers that the test procedure was not sufficiently "objective" because certain test conditions were not sufficiently specified in the standard, demonstrates the fallacy of the contention in your memorandum (at pages 6-7) that the positioning of the body block in the July 10 test "introduc[es] a variable in the compliance test procedure that is not authorized by the NHTSA standard . . ." It also completely undermines Chrysler's assertion (at page 7) that the agency is "retroactively interpret[ing]" the standard. The industry was certainly "fairly informed" that "the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions."

NHTSA also disputes Chrysler's assertion (at page 4) that "the most natural and representative location for the body block" is against the seat back. To the contrary, that location is not consistent with any possible occupant use. Conversely, the location of the body block in the July 10 test conducted for NHTSA reflects the approximate belt geometry that would exist if a 5th percentile female occupied the seat. n2

n2 Standard No. 210 requires seat belt anchorages to be installed at each designated seating position, which is defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) in part as a "location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female." This is yet another indication that all anchorages should be strong enough to withstand the required test loads when occupied by a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female.

As reflected in the preamble to the 1990 amendments to Standard No. 210 (55 FR 17970; April 30, 1990) and the discussion of the petitions for reconsideration of those amendments (56 FR 63676; December 5, 1991), the agency has endeavored to have the test procedure be as representative as possible of real world crash conditions. See, e.g., 55 FR at 17976-77 (simultaneous testing of anchorages); 55 FR at 17980, Col. 1 (limits on substitute materials to "ensure that the loading imposed during compliance testing is a realistic simulation of actual anchorage loading"); 55 FR at 17980, Col. 3 (effort to assure that reduced body block width will not be "unrepresentative of persons likely to occupy the seating position . . ."); 56 FR at 63677, Col. 1 (use of original attachment hardware "to ensure that the load application onto the anchorage is as realistic as possible"); and 56 FR 63677, Col. 3 (requiring that test setups using replacement webbing "duplicate the geometry" of the original webbing at the initiation of the test "to protect vehicle manufacturers from the agency identifying apparent noncompliances based upon test conditions with unrealistic loading"). n3 n3 NHTSA recognizes that in some respects the test procedure for Standard No. 210 does not simulate real-world conditions. See 55 FR at 17972-73 (explaining why the load onset and load holding times in the standard are "orders of magnitude greater than the corresponding time periods observed in crashes").

Your memorandum contends that an interpretation of Standard No. 210 under which a vehicle could be found noncompliant on the basis of a test with the body block several inches in front of the seat back would render the standard not "objective," and thus inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. @ 30111(a), citing Chrysler Corporation v. Department of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659, 675-676 (6th Cir. 1972). However, that case merely prohibits NHTSA from establishing test procedures that are based on "subjective determinations:"

Objective . . . means that tests to determine compliance must be capable of producing identical results when test conditions are exactly duplicated, that they be decisively demonstrable by performing a rational test procedure, and that compliance is based upon the readings obtained from measuring instruments as opposed to the subjective opinions of human beings.

NHTSA's test procedure, as implemented by its contractor in the July 10 test, clearly satisfies each of these three criteria for objectivity. There can be no dispute that it produces "identical results," as demonstrated by the fact that the anchorages failed in tests performed by Chrysler using that procedure. The procedure is also "rational," in that it reflects a belt geometry that is found in the real world (as opposed to the belt geometry in the body block location favored by Chrysler). Finally, the anchorage failed in a test conducted in accordance with measurable readings, rather than any "subjective opinions of human beings."

Your memorandum states (at page 4) that Chrysler's review of prior NHTSA compliance tests suggests that "the agency has also customarily located the pelvic body block against the seat back during FMVSS 210 compliance tests." Our review of the tests conducted by the agency indicates that this statement is not correct. As I advised you approximately ten days ago, the distance of the body block from the seat is not a data point that is memorialized in the test reports. Therefore, OVSC personnel reviewed the test photos and/or films of all Standard No. 210 tests conducted by NHTSA contractors of MY 1990 and later vehicles in an attempt to ascertain the body block position in those tests. Of the 21 tests in which the body block position could be definitely ascertained, in all but one (a test of the front seat anchorage in a MY 1992 Geo Storm), the block was not flush against the seat back.

In accordance with its usual procedures, OVSC provided Chrysler with contemporaneous reports of the Standard No. 210 compliance tests that the agency performed on its vehicles. Photos of the two Standard Nos. 207/210 tests conducted on Chrysler vehicles during the past five years (on the 1994 Dodge Caravan and the 1994 Dodge Ram Van) reveal that the test body block was placed at some distance from the seat back. Thus, Chrysler cannot legitimately claim that it was surprised by the body block location used by the contractor in the July 10 test.

In sum, although Chrysler has submitted a test that indicates that the anchorages in the 1995 Cirrus did not fail when the body block was placed against the seat back, such a result is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 210 when the anchorage fails in tests at other body block positions, and particularly where those positions are more reflective of real world belt geometry.

Under the circumstances, if Chrysler does not promptly notify the agency that it has decided that a noncompliance exists and conduct a notification and remedy campaign in accordance with 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, the Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance would be justified in issuing an initial decision pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30118(a) that such a noncompliance exists. Please advise me or Michael Brownlee of your intentions immediately.