ID: nht90-4.30

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-7-89 from S. Kadoya to S.P. Wood

TEXT:

This responds to your request for interpretations of several safety standards and the Bumper Standard, in connection with a planned "active" suspension system. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by this agency, it is the responsibility of the manufac turer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

According to your letter, Mazda is concerned about the protocol of compliance testing of vehicles equipped with an active suspension system. This concern arises because many standards do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during complianc e testing. As you noted, this has not been a concern for conventional suspension systems, since they do not provide for variable height.

Mazda's planned active suspension system would be actuated by hydraulic fluid or compressed air, with control pressure being developed by a hydraulic pump or air compressor driven off the engine. Consequently, the active suspension system would be opera tional only when the vehicle's engine is operating. At vehicle speeds in excess of "z" mph, where z is greater than 35 mph, the suspension height would be lowered by "x" mm from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation. If the engine/vehicl e were not used for several consecutive days, pressure in the control system would fall such that the supension height may be lowered from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation by "y" mm, where y is greater than x. The suspension height w ould return to the nominal or design position for vehicle operation after such an extended period of inoperation almost immediately after starting the vehicle's engine.

Before discussing your specific questions, I would like to discuss more generally the issue of how compliance is determined in situations where a standard does not specify a particular test condition. In issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards, N HTSA attempts to specify all relevant test conditions. The agency does this as part of ensuring that its standards are objective and practicable. As a practical matter, however, it is not possible to specify every conceivable test condition. This is p articularly true for ones which may only be relevant to

as-yet-undeveloped technologies.

In cases where a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we believe there are several relevant factors to consider in interpreting the standard. First, in the absence of specification of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. For example, where a standard does n ot specify suspension height, its requirements may need to be met at all heights to which the suspension can be adjusted. Before reaching such a conclusion, however, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes. Even if a s tandard is silent as to a particular test condition, the language of the standard or its purposes may indicate limitations on such test condition. Finally, in situations where a limitation on a particular test condition may appear to be appropriate, we also must consider whether the limitation is sufficiently clear, both with respect to justification and specificity, to be appropriate for interpretation. For example, in a situation where it may appear to be reasonable to limit a particular test condit ion but it is not obvious what particular limitation should be adopted, it would be inappropriate to select a particular limitation by interpretation. Instead, such a decision should be reached in rulemaking.

I will now address the specific questions asked in your letter.

Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

In asking about Standard No. 108, you stated the following:

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 the requirem ents of FMVSS 108 must be meet (sic),"...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 whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" postiion. Conversely, reflex reflectors, and turn signal lamps that also function as hazard warning signal flashers must comply with the lo cation 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 hours, at max imum, only.

You then asked two questions, (1) whether Mazda's understanding of the subject NHTSA interpretation is accurate, and (2) whether Mazda's interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers is correct.

I note that the February 1985 interpretation was written in the context of a vehicle with a variable height system actuated by hydraulic fluid. In that particular system, the hydraulic pressure relaxed over a period of

about three hours after the ignition was turned off, with the result that the vehicle assumed a lower height than it would have during driving. NHTSA stated the following:

We believe that the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose. Since vehicles at rest do not require use of headlamps, the minimum height requirement would be measured at the point after the ignition is on and when the car begins to travel (your letter implies that the time lag between turning on the ignition and restoration of a complying mounting height is a matter of seconds). On the other hand, the hazard warning signal lamps are frequently operated when the vehicle is stopped, and therefore the minimum mounting height of turn signal lamps, through which they operate, must be met with the ignition off, even if the system requires three hours to deplete itself and lower the v ehicle to its minimum height.

With respect to your question of whether Mazda's understanding of the interpretation is correct, I would like to note two points. First, while you state that "the requirements of FMVSS 108" must be met at any time in which lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment are to be operated for their intended purpose, our interpretation was limited to standard's minimum height requirement. While we are prepared, if asked, to address other requirements, our interpretations should be understood to be limited to their specific facts and conclusions. Second, while our interpretation only addressed headlamps and hazard warning signal lamps, you applied the interpretation for headlamps to taillamps, stoplamps, the license plate lamp, and side marker lam ps, and the interpretation for hazard warning signal lamps to reflex reflectors. We concur with this application, with respect to Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement.

We do not agree with Mazda's suggested interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers. You would apparently like us to conclude that Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement for hazard warning signal fla shers does not apply after a vehicle's ignition has been turned off for a matter of days.

In addressing how Standard No. 108 applies in the absence of a specification for vehicle height, our February 1985 interpretation differentiates between situations where the vehicle is operating and where it is not. Looking at the purpose of the require ments in question, we believe it is obvious that the minimum height requirement for headlamps is only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating, while the minimum height for hazard warning signal lamps is also relevant to situations where the vehicle is stopped and the ignition turned off. However, we believe that any determination that Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement for hazard warning signal flashers should not apply after a specified number of hours after the ignition has be en turned off is one that would need to be addressed in rulemaking.

It is therefore my opinion that the minimum mounting height of hazard warning signal lamps must be met at all heights with the ignition off, even if the system requires days to deplete itself and lower the vehicle

to its minimum height. If you believe that a time limitation should be placed on this requirement, I note that you can submit a petition for rulemaking requesting such a change.

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors

You requested an interpretation of section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 111, which generally requires a passenger car's rearview mirror to "provide a field of view with an included horizontal angle measured from the projected eye point of at least 20 degrees, and sufficient angle to provide a view of level road surface extending to the horizon beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle...." You noted that since the specified procedures for determining the location of the driver 's eye reference points are made referenced to points with the vehicle's cabin, your active suspension system would not affect these measurements. However, different vehicle heights would be relevant to whether there is a view of level road surface exte nding to the horizon beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle. You stated that, based on "intended purpose," Mazda's interpretation of Standard No. 111 is that the requirements of this standard are to be met when the vehi cle's ignition is in the "on" position as rearview mirrors are not intended to be used when the vehicle's engine is not operating.

You then asked two questions, (1) whether Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 with respect to the state of the vehicle's ignition switch is correct, and (2) for the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 1 11, what means of maintaining the intended suspension height for a given speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA.

We agree that the field of view requirement specified in S5.1.1 for rearview mirrors need not be met for vehicle heights that only occur when the engine is not on, since the requirement is only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating. Howe ver, the requirement would need to be at all vehicle heights that occur during vehicle operation, under the loading conditions specified in S5.1.1.

With respect to the issue of how suspension height should be maintained for purposes of compliance testing, you note early in your letter that, for reasons of practicality and safety, a vehicle's engine is not actually operational during compliance testi ng. However, since the active suspension system derives its power from the vehicle's engine, the system's ability to maintain and regulate suspension height is only possible during engine operation. You therefore indicated that Mazda is seeking guideli nes (for several standards) by which Mazda may be able to establish a means to maintain the intended suspension height for compliance testing purposes in the absence of engine operation.

We are not able, in an interpretation, to specify a particular means for maintaining suspension height for compliance testing in the absence of engine operation. However, the basic principle that should be followed in selecting a means for maintaining s uspension height is that it should not result in different test results than would occur if testing could be conducted with suspension height being maintained by engine operation,

i.e., what would happen in the real world. This should be relatively straightforward for section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 111, since the test is static. For a crash test, it is important that a vehicle not be altered in any way that would change the vehi cle's crash performance relevant to the aspect of performance being tested.

Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement

In asking about Standard No. 204, you stated the following:

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 vehicle 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 vehicle speed and steered wheels are positioned straight ahead.

You then asked whether Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 are correct. As discussed below, we agree that Standard No. 204's requirements need to be met only at the suspension height that occurs at a 30 mph vehicle speed and with steered wheels positioned straight ahead.

Standard No. 204 specifies requirements limiting the rearward displacement of the steering control into the passenger compartment to reduce the likelihood of chest, neck, or head injury. These requirements must be met in a 30 mile per hour perpendicular impact into a fixed collision barrier. While the standard specifies a number of test conditions, it does not specify suspension height.

Looking at the Standard No. 204 as a whole, we believe it is clear that NHTSA explicitly decided to limit the standard's evaluation of steering control rearward displacement to how vehicles perform in 30 mph perpendicular impacts, even though the require ments have relevance at lower and higher speeds. Therefore, we agree that the standard's requirements need to be met only at suspension heights that occur at a 30 mph vehicle speed and with steered wheels positioned straight ahead.

With respect to Mazda's question concerning means of maintaining intended suspension height for compliance testing, please see our discussion provided with respect to Standard No. 111.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection

In asking about Standard No. 208, you stated the following:

Section S8.1.1(d), "Vehicle test attitude," specifies the procedure for determining the vehicle test attitude that is to be used for testing. Specifically, 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 opening, 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 wil l 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 loaded 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" condi tion is quite clear. However, Mazda interprets the "fully loaded 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 likely have an "as delivered" height greater than the "full loaded" height. H owever, this fact is of no importance as S8.1.1(d) states that the 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 interp retation is that these criteria must be met with the vehicle's ignition in the "on" position only.

You then asked three questions, (1) whether Mazda's interpretation of the definition of the "fully loaded condition" is correct with respect to the condition of the ignition switch, (2) whether Mazda's interpretation of the irrelevance of the relative re lationship between the "as delivered" and "fully loaded" conditions is correct, and (3) whether Mazda's interpretation of the meaning of "between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude" is correct.

In addressing your questions, I will begin by noting that Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements which must be met in specified crash tests at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. While the standard specifies a number of tes t conditions, it does not specify suspension height. However, the standard does specify vehicle attitude, which is closely related to suspension height. In addressing how Standard No. 208 applies in the absence of a specification for vehicle height, th e relationship between the standard's attitude specification and vehicle height must be considered.

Section S8.1.1(d) specifies the attitude of the vehicle during testing, i.e., the angle of the vehicle relative to the ground. This test condition ensures that the vehicle is not overly tilted toward the front or back, or to one side. The section accom plishes this purpose by specifying that, during a compliance test, the height of the vehicle at each wheel is within a specified range. This range, which may be somewhat different for each wheel, is determined by looking at the vehicle in the "as delive red" condition and the "fully loaded" condition. A vehicle must meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 when its height at each wheel is

anywhere within the specified ranges.

On first glance, one might read section S8.1.1(d) to create a height requirement, since ranges of height are determined under that section (at each wheel). This would be incorrect, except in a very narrow sense, since Standard No. 208 does not specify, for vehicles with variable height suspension systems, what suspension height should be used in the two conditions ("as delivered" and "fully loaded") where the specified ranges of height are determined under section S8.1.1(d).

Looking at the Standard No. 208 as a whole, we believe it is clear that NHTSA explicitly decided to limit the standard's evaluation of occupant crash protection in frontal impacts to how vehicles perform in impacts of 30 mph or less, even though the requ irements also have relevance at higher speeds. It is our interpretation that the frontal crash test requirements need to be met at all suspension heights that can occur at speeds of 30 mph or less, with the vehicle operational. It is also our interpret ation that the crash test requirements need to be met only at suspension heights that can occur at the speed used in the crash test.

A remaining issue is how section S8.1.1(d) applies for vehicles with variable height suspension systems. As discussed below, vehicle attitude should be determined under this section using the actual suspension setting (or equivalent, if the setting is a utomatic) to be used in a crash test.

For purposes of illustration, I will assume a vehicle with two very different suspension height settings. It would not be appropriate to conclude that the ranges of height determined under section S8.1.1(d) should simultaneously cover both suspension he ights. Such ranges would be very large, and would not ensure that the vehicle is not overly tilted toward the front or back, or to one side. Moreover, such ranges would not be relevant to the real world, with respect to vehicle attitude.

Traditional vehicles can be viewed as having a single suspension "setting." This single suspension condition is used in determining vehicle attitude under section S5.8.8.1. The ranges of height result from the differences in loading under the "as deliv ered" and "fully loaded" conditions.

A single suspension "setting" (or equivalent, if the setting is automatic) should similarly be used in determining vehicle attitude for vehicles with variable height suspension systems. The "setting" should be the one to be used in a crash test.

With respect to Mazda's question concerning means of maintaining intended suspension height for compliance testing, please see our discussion provided with respect to Standard No. 111.

You also asked for an interpretation of section S8.2.7 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies additional 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." You stated that Mazda interprets the meaning of "normal attitude" to be that vehicle attitude which is intended

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. Standard No. 208 provides manufacturers the option of either equipping their vehicles with safety belts or meeti ng certain alternative requirements, including lateral moving barrier crash test requirements. These requirements are relevant at all vehicle heights that can occur during vehicle operation, regardless of speed. Moreover, NHTSA has not decided to limit the standard's evaluation of this aspect of safety performance to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds. It is our interpretation that the lateral moving barrier crash test requirements, if applicable, must be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational. "Normal attitude" is the attitude determined under section S8.1.1(d). As discussed above, attitude for vehicles equipped with variable height suspension systems is determined under section S8.1.1(d) using the ac tual suspension setting (or equivalent, if the setting is automatic) to be used in a crash test.

Standards No. 212, Windshield Mounting; No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion; No. 301, Fuel System Integrity

In asking about Standards No. 212, No. 219, and No. 301, you noted that NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation to Mazda about how these standards apply to adjustable height suspension systems. In a letter dated August 10, 1982, the agency address ed a vehicle equipped with a suspension system having two height positions, one for normal highway driving and another for off-road driving, which could be selected by the driver. NHTSA stated the following:

(Safety Standards No. 212, No. 219, and No. 301) do not specify a height adjustment because almost all vehicles have a single, set adjustment. . . After careful consideration, it is the agency's position that such a vehicle capable of variable height adj ustment would have to comply with the vehicle adjusted to any position that is possible. This is true because the vehicle could be driven on the highway, for example, even if it were adjusted to the off-road position. Consequently, it is important that the vehicle comply with the standards in all positions.

You noted that while suspension height could be adjusted by the driver for the system discussed in the agency's previous interpretation, the active suspension system you are currently considering would use an on-board electronic controller to select susp ension height, and suspension height would not be adjustable by the driver. Consequently, according to your letter, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehicle speed and loading condition as is the case with conve ntional suspension systems. You stated that 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 g iven the specified speed and loading conditions. You also stated that, using an "intended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of the three standards are to be met only when the vehicle's ignition is "on." You then asked whether thes e suggested interpretations are correct.

Standard No. 212 specifies windshield retention requirements that must be

met in a specified frontal crash test at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. Similarly, Standard No. 219 specifies windshield zone intrusion requirements that must be met in a specified frontal crash test at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. Standard No. 301 specifies fuel system integrity requirements for several specified crash tests. These include a frontal crash test similar to those in Standards No. 212 and No. 219. Requirements for this test must be met at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. Other tests include a rear moving barrier crash test, a lateral moving barrier crash test, and a static rollover test.

We agree that the requirements of Standards No. 212, No. 219, and No. 301 need not be met for vehicle heights that only occur when the engine is not on, since the requirements are only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating. Looking at th e three standards as a whole, we believe it is clear that, for the frontal tests specified by the three standards, NHTSA decided to limit the standards' evaluation of safety performance to how vehicles perform in impacts of 30 mph or less, even though th e requirements have relevance at higher speeds. It is our interpretation that the frontal crash test requirements specified by these standards need to be met at all suspension heights that can occur at speeds of 30 mph or less, with the vehicle operatio nal. It is also our interpretation that the crash test requirements need to be met only at suspension heights that can occur at the speed used in the crash test.

We reach a different conclusion for Standard No. 301's other crash test requirements. These requirements are relevant at all vehicle speeds and suspension heights. Moreover, NHTSA has not decided to limit the standard's evaluation of these aspects of s afety performance to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds. It is our interpretation that these crash test requirements must be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational.

Part 581 Bumper Standard

In asking about the Part 581 Bumper Standard, you noted that NHTSA has previously issued several interpretations of how the standard applies to vehicles with adjustable height suspension systems. In a letter to Subaru dated May 6, 1986, NHTSA stated the following:

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 criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted. There is no la nguage in the test requirements of the standard limiting their applicability to "the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position."

This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Bumper Standard, set forth in section 581.2, to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of a passenger motor vehicle from low speed collisions. If a vehicle's suspension could be adjust ed so that its bumper height resulted in bumper mismatch with other vehicles in the event of low speed collisions, the reduction in physical damage attributable to the Bumper Standard would be defeated in whole or part.

In another letter, dated February 12, 1985, NHTSA stated that a vehicle is "required to meet the pendulum test of Part 581 in any vehicle use scenario in which the vehicle operates, and the barrier test of Part 581 when the engine is idling."

You suggested, for the barrier test, that the agency's May 1986 interpretation may be inappropriate for your active suspension system, since your system provides for only one suspension height when the engine is idling. You also suggested, for the pendu lum test, that these interpretations seem to be in conflict with the Bumper Standard's stated purpose to reduce physical damage to motor vehicles in low speed collisions. We assume that you are referring to the fact that your suspension system has heigh ts that occur only at speeds greater than 35 mph. You then requested that NHTSA provide an interpretation of Part 581 with respect to your system.

In addressing how Part 581 applies to vehicles equipped with an active suspension system, I will address separately the standard's barrier and pendulum tests. For the barrier test, a vehicle must meet specified damage criteria after an impact into a fix ed barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, at 2.5 mph. Section 581.6 sets forth conditions applicable to bumper testing. Under section 581.6(c), at the onset of a barrier impact, the vehicle's engine is operating at idling s peed.

Looking at the Bumper Standard as a whole, we believe it is clear that NHTSA decided to limit the barrier test's evaluation of bumper performance to how vehicles perform in 2.5 mph frontal impacts, even though the requirements have relevance at lower and higher speeds and when the vehicle is nonoperational. It is our interpretation that the barrier test requirements specified by this standard need to be met at all suspension heights that can occur at 2.5 mph.

We reach a different conclusion for the pendulum test, which serves the purpose of creating a bumper height requirement. This requirement is relevant at all vehicle speeds and suspension heights, and when the vehicle is nonoperational. I note that whil e Mazda is correct that the Bumper Standard's stated purpose is to reduce physical damage to motor vehicles in low speed collisions, NHTSA has justified the bumper height requirement on safety concerns related to "higher speed collisions." In proposing Standard No. 215, the predecessor of Part 581, the agency stated:

. . . in higher speed collisions the tendency of a bumper to override another or to ride under or over a guardrail creates hazards for vehicle occupants. Vehicles with interlocking bumpers block traffic and expose their occupants to considerable danger, particularly if they attempt to get out to unlock bumpers. By overriding or underriding a guardrail, a bumper may strike a supporting post, or similar fixed object, with serious consequences for the vehicle and its occupants. 35 FR 17999, November 24, 1970.

The relevance of the bumper height requirement to nonoperational

situations is also clear, e.g., to help protect parked cars.

Moreover, NHTSA has not decided to limit the bumper height requirement to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds. It is our interpretation that the pendulum test requirements must be met at all suspension heights that can occur, regardless of ve hicle speed or whether the ignition is turned on.

This interpretation is consistent with an October 18, 1978 letter to Nissan, in which NHTSA addressed how the pendulum test applies to vehicles equipped with height control systems, including automatic height control systems. Among other things, the age ncy stated the following:

. . . There is no language in the pendulum test requirements of the standard which would limit their applicability to only the ignition-on or ignition-off situation or to the recommended driving position for normal roadways. The vehicle must be capable of meeting the pendulum test requirements at all stable bumper heights possible at unloaded vehicle weight.

Thus, in the situations described in Question 1 and 2 of your letter, in which an automatic height control system is employed, the vehicle must comply with the pendulum test requirements in both the ignition-on and ignition-off positions . . . .

I note that one of our past letters, a December 24, 1984 letter addressed to Porsche, appears to suggest that the pendulum test must be met in any setting in which the system operates "when the engine is idling." This might be read to suggest that the p endulum test need not be met when the vehicle is nonoperational. However, this interpretation cited section 581.6(c) in concluding that the engine is idling during Part 581 testing. Section 581.6(c) applies only to the barrier test and not the pendulum test. We therefore consider this interpretation to be incorrect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the analysis presented above.

ID: nht90-4.31

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 2, 1990

FROM: Mark G. Southern

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Child car restraints

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-4-91 to Mark G. Southern from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Recently I contacted Mr. George Shifflett in your office regarding federal and state safety requirements for child car restraints. I have reviewed FMVSS No. 213, and would like to obtain further clarification as to whether it is applicable to the device that I have designed. I have enclosed sketches of my devise for your review.

Specifically my question relates to FMVSS No. 213 S5.3.1 which reads as follows:

Each (add-on) child restraint system shall have no means designed for attaching the system to vehicle seat cushion or vehicle seat back and component (except belts) that is designed to be inserted between the vehicle seat cushion and vehicle seat back. (53 F.R. 1783-January 22, 1988. Effective: January, 22, 1988)

My child safety devise provides additional restraint for children from the ages of two (2) to seven (7) years old; however it is not the primary restraint. The vehicles existing seat belt is the primary restraint.

I am requesting an interpretation as to whether it is permissible for my devise to attach to the seat back as shown in the attached diagrams.

My patent council has recommended that I request confidentiality from anyone, with whom I show the design. I would like to request confidentiality in this matter and that your office not publish or release any information with respect to my design, with out my approval.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me at work (206) 389-5055 or at home (206) 838-4530.

ID: nht90-4.32

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase --General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Shizuoka Works, Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-22-90 from M. Iwase to E.Z. Jones (OCC 5135); Also attached to diagram entitled Re-Calibration Procedures in The Shops (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1990, to Erika Z. Jones, formerly the Chief Counsel, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 108.

You state that section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv) of Standard No. 108 requires that the horizontal indicator of a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) shall be capable of re-calibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees, and you would like us to confirm our in terpretation of the method and procedures of recalibration on the vehicle after repair from accident damage. You say that NHTSA "interprets as follows: If the dimensional specifications of vehicle body and appropriate instruction are described in shop m anual, re-calibration could be addressed." (55 FR pages 4425 and 4426, February 8, 1990). You stated that Koito did not believe that this method is practicable.

We believe that you have misunderstood the Federal Register notice. The notice was the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv). Subsection (iv) states that the horizontal aim indicator of a VHAD "shall be capabl e of recalibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees . . . to accommodate any adjustment necessary for recalibrating the indicator after vehicle repair from accident damage." Ford Motor Company had commented that this requirement was unduly restrictive. It asked NHTSA to allow the option of a VHAD with only a vertical aim indicator if the headlamps as installed met a suggested horizontal aim specification of 0.0 +0.8/-0.4 degree.

NHTSA, believing in the importance of horizontal aim capablility, found that a principal area of concern was that circumstances could occur during the life of the vehicle that could adversely affect maintenance of correct horizontal aim, and that without horizontal aim capability, it was unclear that the accuracy of horizontal aim could be assured after repair of accident damage. It was at that point that NHTSA observed:

"Manufacturers could address this concern by providing dimensional data for precise structural alignment of the vehicle in shop manuals and appropriate instructions for performing the necessary and potentially extensive parts replacement and vehicle reco nstruction requisite for correct horizontal aim." However, NHTSA went on to say that this concern was already met by subsection (iv) which requires the horizontal aim indicator to be capable of recalibration after crash damage or vehicle repair. NHTSA denied

Ford's petition. Thus, it did not propose or adopt a requirement, as Ford wanted, that a manufacturer could provide instructions in place of a VHAD with a horizontal aim indicator. The existing requirement of subsection (iv) remained unchanged. Thus, it is the manufacturer's decision on how to provide for recalibration after crash damage and vehicle repair. Therefore, as long as a VHAD complies with subsection (iv), a manufacturer may provide whatever re-calibration instructions it deems appropriate.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht90-4.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1990

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Dennis T. Johnston -- Senior Executive Engineer, Product Engineering and Regulatory Affairs, Sterling Motor Cars

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-20-90 from D.T. Johnston to J.R. Curry

TEXT:

This responds to your letter reporting a change in the locking system to be installed on the MY 1991 British Sterling car line. Although your letter does not explicitly request the agency determine that the change is of a de minimis nature and that ther efore the Sterling vehicles containing the change would be fully covered by the previously granted exemption for Sterling vehicles, we are treating the letter as making such a request. The alternative to making such a request is to submit a modification petition under 49 CFR S5 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

As you are aware, the Sterling car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Austin Rover showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as par ts marking. This exemption was issued on July 16, 1986, and appeared in the Federal Register on July 22, 1986 (51 FR 26332).

In your letter, you stated that beginning with the start of MY 1991, Sterling Motor Cars (Sterling) plans an improvement in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Sterling vehicle. The change involves the consequence of opening of the tr unk when the system is armed. Currently, the system, once armed, activates when the trunk is opened, even if it is opened with the key. In order to avoid this, the antitheft device must first be disarmed before the trunk is opened. It is our understand ing that Sterling plans to change the system by allowing the system to be disarmed by opening the trunk with a key and rearmed by closing the trunk lid. However, if the trunk were to be forced open without a key, the alarm would still be activated. Aft er reviewing the planned change to the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the change is de minimis. While the change means that opening the trunk with a key will no longer activate the alarm, the agency does not believe that activating the alarm under those circumstances contributes to theft prevention. The agency concludes that the antitheft device, as modified, will continue to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relie s on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Sterling to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to S 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

If Sterling does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Sterling notify the agency of such decisions.

ID: nht90-4.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1990

FROM: Roger C. Fairchild -- Shutler and Low

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-14-90 from P.J. Rice to R.C. Fairchild (A36; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

We are writing on behalf of a client who wishes to import an off-road vehicle called the Pinzgauer. We request your opinion as to whether this vehicle is considered to be a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and is therefore subject to motor vehicle safety standards.

The Pinzgauer model in question is a six wheel, six wheel drive (6x6) cross country vehicle that is manufactured by Steyr-Daimler-Puch in Austria. A 4x4 version of the Pinzgauer is also produced, but this request relates only to one 6x6 vehicle. The veh icle has a turbo-diesel engine and is rated at approximately 10,000 pounds GVWR.

Enclosed for your consideration are copies of factory brochures on the vehicle (enclosure 1). As can be seen from the brochures, the vehicle was designed to operate on a wide variety of terrain conditions. Its features, such as locking differentials, 4 5 degree gradeability, 335 mm ground clearance, 40 degree angle of approach, 45 degree angle of departure, and 700 mm deep water fording capability clearly distinguish the Pinzgauer from Jeep-type utility vehicles. The Pinzgauer's unusual body configura tion sets it apart from typical on-road vehicles. As noted in the enclosed letter from the vehicle's manufacturer (enclosure 2), the Pinzgauer "was developed as an off-road vehicle with limited on-road suitability."

The Pinzgauer was designed and is principally used for military purposes. According to the manufacturer, approximately 95 percent of the 1,100 Pinzgauers that are produced annually are sold to the armed forces (see enclosure 2). The U.S. Special Forces have purchased a small number of these vehicles. Examples of military uses of the Pinzgauer include uses as platforms for rocket launchers, anti-aircraft guns, mobile workshops and field medical shelters (see enclosure 3). The importer of the vehicle i n question plans to use the vehicle for off-road, recreational purposes. A photo of the vehicle in question is enclosed (see enclosure 4).

According to Steyr-Daimler-Puch, the one vehicle that competes directly with the Pinzgauer in terms of similarity of product and design philosophy is the Mercedes Unimog. On February 7, 1984, NHTSA determined that the Unimog is excluded from the "motor vehicle" category. (See enclosure 5). It appears that both vehicles provide a platform enabling substantial off-road activity, although the Unimog would appear to be used on-road to a greater extent than the Pinzgauer (for highway maintenance purposes). We see no basis for establishing differing classifications for these directly competitive vehicles, particularly classifications based on a finding that the Unimog is used off-road to a greater extent than the Pinzgauer. To do

so would inappropriately provide a major competitive advantage to one manufacturer over the other.

On March 25, 1982, NHTSA issued an interpretation letter regarding the classification of Pinzgauer vehicles. In that letter (see enclosure 6), the agency stated that the Pinzgauer presents a "borderline case" in terms of classification as a motor vehicl e. The agency concluded that, based on available information, the Pinzgauer appeared to be a "motor vehicle." However, the agency also stated that if additional information on five matters (principally relating to the marketing of the vehicle) were prov ided, the agency might reach a different conclusion. The agency offered to reconsider the matter if such information were provided.

Since the current situation involves an owner of a single vehicle wishing to import the vehicle for personal use and does not involve any plan to market the vehicle commercially, we cannot address several of the five information requests. The point rega rding on-street licensing may not be relevant, due to the nearly exclusive use of the vehicles by national military services. To the best of our knowledge, the only Pinzgauers that have been sold in recent years for use in the United States were purchas ed by the Special Forces. An off-road use warning label would not be of significant value where no sale of the vehicle is intended, but such a label could be affixed, if necessary to assure off-road status.

On the other hand, we believe that certain circumstances distinguish the current matter from the one that was raised in 1982. These circumstances are:

1. The current request relates solely to the 6x6 version of the Pinzgauer. This version has a unique body configuration and drive train which distinguish the vehicle from typical, on-road vehicles and make the vehicle particularly well suited to off-road use. It is our understanding that the 1982 letter related to the entire Pinzgauer line, including the 4x4.

2. On February 7, 1984, NHTSA issued a letter stating that the Unimog is not a "motor vehicle." As noted above, the Unimog is comparable to and directly competitive with the Pinzgauer. We believe that the two vehicles should be regulated in a consisten t manner.

3. It is our understanding that the information submitted with respect to the 1982 consideration of the Pinzgauer by NHTSA did not include substantial information on the manufacturer's principal design intent for the Pinzgauer, for tactical (military), o ff-road use and the high percentage of vehicles that are actually used for such military purposes.

For the reasons set forth above, we believe the 6x6 version of the Pinzgauer is not "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways ..." within the meaning of section 102(3) of the Safety Act. As discussed above, the vehicle's manufacturer has stated that the Pinzgauer "was developed as an off-road vehicle, with limited on-road suitability." We believe that this description of the design intent for the Pinzgauer is particularly true with regard to the 6x6 version; that versi on has a drive-train configuration that is useful in a harsh off-road

environment, but is overdesigned for on-road use.

If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht90-4.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1990

FROM: Gordon Bonvallet - Consulting Lighting, Engineer

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 108, Request for interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gordon Bonvallet (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This request for interpretation of ruling of FMVSS 108 is being made for HELLA KG, Lippstadt, Germany. Please direct any questions and the NHTSA response to the above address.

A design consideration for a future automotive vehicle headlamp system consists of four lamps, using gaseous discharge "integral beam" headlamps for the low beams and incandescent "replaceable bulb" (HB3) headlamps for the high beams. The gaseous discha rge lamp and the incandescent lamp on each side of the vehicle will be independent of each other but will share a common frame assembly. Each will be able to be replaced in part or completely without disturbing the other lamp.

The gaseous discharge lamp and ballast will be physically separated from each other but will be electrically connected with no means of disconnecting either component from the other. If either the lamp or ballast fails to operate, both components must b e replaced.

PHOTOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS: Although a combination gaseous discharge/incandescent system is not specifically addressed in FMVSS 108, it is our opinion that the Figure 15 photometric requirement would apply to both the low beam and the high beam lamps. Ple ase advise if this is correct.

AIMING REQUIREMENTS: At this time, it is anticipated that each individual lamp will have external aiming pads and therefore can be independently aimable. There is a possibility that an on-board aiming system of some type may be used. Are there any spec ial considerations that must be adhered to that are not specifically addressed in FMVSS 108?

It is our opinion that the above described system is allowable under FMVSS 108. We request that you review this concept and advise if you concur or if there are other factors that must be considered.

ID: nht90-4.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 8, 1990

FROM: William Walters

TO: Erika Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to article entitled Dankert's Device, Local inventor wants to produce Info-Lite (text omitted); Also attached to United States Patent information for patent number 4,922,225 (text and graphics omitted)

TEXT:

I am concerned why the D.O.T. and the National Safety Council have not investigated the enclosed material.

The original 3rd brake lite patent and the one adopted for mandatory use was designed by Norman Dankert. His addition which is covered by the enclosed patent not only addressed highway problems but gives you the solution. This safety is before the fact , not after as is the case of ABS & Air Bags. Why not prevent the occurance.

This lite also becomes the ultimate flow meter which prevents "bunching" and congestion.

Please read the enclosed, "Correcting the Path-Following message."

The United States Patent Office came to the conclusion that the analysis merited a patent.

I would like the National Safety Administration's opinion on this and also the reason why this System is not being used.

Attachments

Attached is an article entitled Dankert's Device, Local inventor wants to produce Info-Lite (text omitted);

Also attached is United States Patent information, patent number 4,922,225, dated May 1, 1990, (text and graphics omitted).

ID: nht90-4.37

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 8, 1990

FROM: Jack Barben -- President, Custom Form Mfg. Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jack Barben (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Our company has developed a lighted side rail for pick-up trucks which we will sell in the aftermarket. Please see enclosed pictures. These rails would be offered in an amber, hot pink and hot yellow. They would not be exposed directly to the rear as the mounting fixtures which contain the source light are opague. Our installation literature would caution against mounting on the cab roof or on the tailgate or front rail where they could be exposed directly to the front or rear. Also we would give i nstructions for seperate fusing of the electrical supply lines.

Would you please comment to me in writing regarding your departments position on compliance on this product.

This is a proprietary product and would appreciate your treatment as such.

Attachment

Photo of lighted side rails for pick-up trucks (Text and photo omitted)

ID: nht90-4.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William D. Rogers -- President, SportsCar America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to report entitled NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Reports Accepted During September 90 for Test Program 90

TEXT:

We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCar America, Inc., for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, on grounds of substantial economic hardship, and are returning all copies to you for the reasons stated below.

SportsCar America wishes to undertake the importation and sale of passenger cars produced in Brazil. Pursuant to an "Exclusive Distribution Agreement" ("the Agreement") with Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda. of Brazil, which you enclosed, it has imported a pro totype vehicle for study, with reference to its status of conformance with the U.S. vehicle safety and emission standards.

The proper petitioner for this exemption is Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda., identified in the Agreement that you attached as the "Manufacturer." Under Section 1 of the Agreement, SportsCar America is to return the prototype to the Manufacturer with "those mo difications necessary in order to meet the emission and safety standards necessary for the importation" of the cars, and the Manufacturer will then use it as a model for the production of vehicles for sale in the United States. Under 49 CPR Part 567, th e Manufacturer must also attach its certification of compliance to the completed vehicle before its shipment to the United States. Part 555 restricts petitions for temporary exemptions to Manufacturers of motor vehicles.

Although you identify SportsCar America as the "distribution agent", we have no record that the Manufacturer has filed the designation of agent pursuant to 49 CPR 551.45 that is required of Manufacturers offering their products for importation and sale i n the United States. Presumably Alfa Metais would wish to appoint SportsCar America as its agent. Once it has done so, SportsCar America may submit the petition on behalf of the Manufacturer. The production and financial data (in dollars, please) must be those of the Manufacturer. However, we regard as relevant to conformance arguments the efforts that SportsCar America intends to make during the time a possible exemption is in effect, as outlined in your petition.

Noting your requests for confidential treatment of information, we are returning all copies of your petition, with our comments. Generally, the agency does not like to accord confidential treatment to all financial data submitted. At a minimum, it woul d like to include in its notice asking comments from the public a dollar amount of the cumulative net profit or loss experienced by the Manufacturer in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Similarly, it would like to publish a dollar fi gure in discussing the effects of a denial of the petition on

the petitioner. The purpose of this is our policy that if the public is to make an informed comment on the issue of whether compliance would cause a Manufacturer substantial economic hardship, the public should have access to much the same data as is av ailable to the agency in its determination.

If you would like clarification of any of these matters, Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) will be happy to provide them.

ID: nht90-4.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1990

FROM: Mary Rees -- D.C. (USA) Inc.

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-18-90 to Mary Rees from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Part 567; Std. 207)

TEXT:

Thank you for sending a copy of the Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I have received this, as well as the code of federal regulations CFR Ch. V (10.1.88 edition).

I was wondering two things:

1) If a manufacturer has developed an item that he feels does meet all federal safety regulations, and it is ready to be tested, how would he get it tested? Are there any forms to be filed?

2) We propose to manufacture an automotive seat frame. Since this is only a component of the actual seat, does the firm who puts together the finished seat apply for approval and testing?

I would appreciate it if you could let me know the answers to these questions at your earliest convenience.