ID: nht94-2.37

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 13, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Bus Distributors Ass'n.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE TO MY QUESTIONS FAXED TO YOU ON 1/12/94 AND 2/14/94. THE "APPENDIX" PROVIDED HAS AND I AM SURE WILL PROVIDE MUCH MORE BENEFIT IN TIME.

I AM FACED, NOW, WITH A NEW QUANDARY. I CERTAINLY DO NOT MEAN TO IMPOSE ADDED WORK LOAD, AND I ASSURE YOU THAT I HAVE READ AND REREAD FMVSS 571.108 - LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, FOR MY ANSWER.

IN 571.108 SECTION S5.5.7 - REFERENCE TO VEHICLES INCLUDING BUSES, OF LESS THAN 80 INCHES OVERALL WIDTH - HAVE VERY DEFINITE WIRING PROGRAMS INCLUDED, PART (a) AND (b) - IN BOTH SUB-SECTIONS THE "MAKER LIGHTS" ARE REFERRED TO - WHICH HAVE TO BE ACTIVATED WHEN THE PARKING OR HEADLIGHT SWITCH IS ACTIVATED.

MY "QUANDARY" IS - I CAN FIND NO LIKE OR SIMILAR SECTION REQUIRING THE ACTIVATION OF SPECIFIC LIGHTS ON VEHICLES OF MORE THAN 80 INCHES IN OVERALL WIDTH.

ANY HELP AND/OR KNOWLEDGE OF A SIMILAR POSITION/FACTOR ON VEHICLES OF MORE THAN 80 INCHES IN WIDTH AS THOSE OF 80 INCHES OR LESS WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

ID: nht94-2.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert L. Montgomery -- Safety Manager, Leprino Transportation Division, Leprino Foods (Denver, CO)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from Marvin A. Leach to Robert Hellmuth (OCC 9821); Also attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from Marvin A. Leach to to Robert L. Montgomery; Also attached to a letter dated 3/9/94 from Robert Montgomery to Mike Baker

TEXT:

This replies to your letter of March 9, 1994, to the Regional Office of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). You have questions regarding the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, a regulation of the Na tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

You have enclosed photos of two rear end treatments. In Photo #1, the conspicuity treatment is applied "on the doors at a height of 56 inches which is approximately 6 inches higher than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated." The conspicuity treatment ap pears to extend the full width of the vehicle. In Photo #2, the reflectorized material is located "4 inches less than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated." In this configuration, the conspicuity treatment has been relocated to a position between the r ear lighting units so that it no longer extends the full width of the vehicle.

Photo #1 represents the trailer as received from the manufacturer. Photo #2 represents the modifications you wish to make to the trailer. You have asked whether the configuration depicted in Photo #2 complies with Standard No. 108.

The manufacturer of the trailer has certified its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the conspicuity treatment location requirements of Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) specifies that the material b e located "as close to the extreme edges as practicable." The relocation you contemplate would place the material where it is not as close to the extreme edges of the trailer as it originally was. This would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 .

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(20(A)) (the Act) prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The prohibition, however, does not apply to the vehicle owner. This means that Leprino Foods and its employees are not themselves prohibited by the Act f rom modifying your trailers to the configuration depicted in Photo #2. It does mean that a "manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business" cannot perform this work for you.

We surmise that your trailers are subject to the jurisdiction of the FHWA when they are operated in interstate commerce. FHWA regulations require your trailer to be equipped to conform to Standard No. 108. Thus, if you modify your trailers so that they no longer conform to the rear location requirements of

Standard No. 108, you would be in violation of the regulations of that agency. This is to advise you that the FHWA has concurred in this interpretation to you.

Either mounting height location is permitted. Originally, Standard No. 108 did specify a mounting height for rear conspicuity material that was "as close as practicable to 1.25 meters above the road surface." However, the agency amended this paragraph on October 6, 1993, to adopt a height range of "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." This is the equivalent of 15 to 60 inches above the road surface. Therefore, the mounting heights of 46 an d 56 inches shown in your two photos is in accordance with the revised requirement.

Finally, we note your comment that the diagram in the Federal Register "failed to consider the bumper bar area and the light assemblies that are actually on a van." The requirements that must be adhered to are found in the text of Standard No. 108; Figu re 30 is meant only as a general guide as to the placement of the conspicuity material. Obviously, it cannot depict the exact rear configuration of all van trailers.

ID: nht94-2.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/6/94 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack (OCC 9549); Also attached to letter dated 3/9/77 from Frank A. Berndt to W.G. Milby (Std. 217)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 6, 1994, asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Our response to each of your questions fol lows.

1. Your first question requested confirmation that a left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) would meet the location requirements of S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) if it is located in the center one-half of the passenger compartment.

Your question concerns the first required additional emergency exit installed on a bus with a rear emergency exit door. Section S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires this exit to be a side emergency exit door "located on the left side of the bus and as near as practi cable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment." Locating the door or the 12-inch required aisle opening for the door in the center one-half of the passenger compartment would not ensure compliance with this requirement. This is because it may be p ossible to locate a door in the center one-half without locating the exit "as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment." In determining the permissible location for this exit, you should determine where the exit would be located if it was located at the midpoint of the passenger compartment. If it is not practicable to locate the exit there, you should move the door only as far as necessary for a practicable location.

2. Your second question requested confirmation that there are no fore and aft location requirements for side emergency exit doors other than the requirements for a left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2) (i).

You are correct. Except for a left side emergency exit door installed as the first additional emergency exit on a bus with a rear emergency door, the only location requirements for side emergency exit doors concern the side of the bus on which the exit must be located. I have attached for your information an appendix which lists all the location requirements for additional emergency exits.

3. Your third question requested confirmation that all side emergency exit doors, including any voluntarily installed, are required to comply with the requirements of the new final rule, including the seat placement requirements in S5.4.2.1( b).

You are correct. Your letter referred to a March 9, 1977 interpretation that voluntarily installed side emergency exit doors were not required to meet the school bus requirements, but were required to meet the non-school bus requirements. Previously, t he school bus emergency exit door requirements in Standard No. 217 referred to "the emergency door." At that time school buses were required to have either one rear emergency exit door or one side emergency exit door and one rear push-out window. Thus, any school bus was required to have only one emergency exit door. The reference to "the emergency door" was to the required door.

In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performance requirements for emergency exits apply to "each" emergency exit. See, for example, S5.4.2.1(b). This change in the language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus. Other requirements apply to "required" emergency exits. See, for example, S5.5.3(c). These requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

APPENDIX Emergency Exit Location Requirements In the March 15, 1991, notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, NHTSA proposed very specific location requirements for emergency exits in school buses (56 FR 11153). The agency receiv ed comments that many of these locations were not possible or practicable. In response to these comments, the agency concluded that the final rule should include only general requirements for the required exits (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Therefor e, the only location requirements for additional emergency exits (1) included in the final rule were:

o For a bus with a rear emergency exit door, the first additional emergency exit must be an emergency exit door on the left side of the bus and as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment (S5.2.3.2(a)(2)).

o For a bus with a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window, the first additional emergency exit must be an emergency exit door on the right side of the bus (S5.2.3.2(a)(3)).

o If additional emergency exit doors are installed, they must be alternated between the right and left sides of the bus (S5.2.3.2(a)(2) and (3)).

o No two emergency exit doors may be located in the same post and roof bow panel space (S5.2.3.2(a)(4)).

o If one emergency roof exit is installed, it must be located as near as practicable to the mid-point of the passenger compartment (S5.2.3.2(b)(2)).

o If two emergency roof exits are installed, they must be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant from the midpoints of the passenger compartment and either the front or rear of the passenger compartment (S5.2.3.2(b)(3)).

o If three or more emergency roof exits are installed, the space between each exit shall, to the extent possible, be the same or equal to the space between the front (or rear) limit of the passenger compartment and the front (or rear) ro of exit (S5.2.3.2(b)(4)).

o Emergency roof exits must be installed so that their longitudinal centerline coincides with the longitudinal centerline of the bus, except that a roof exit may be offset a distance equal to the distance another roof exit is offset in the opposite direction (S5.2.3.2(b)(5) and (6)).

o Emergency window exits must be evenly divided between the right and left sides of the bus (S5.2.3.2(c)).

(1) The November 2 final rule requires all school buses to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. The rule also requires "additional" emergency exits on buses of specified passenger capacities. " Additional" emergency exits, as the term is used in this appendix, refers to emergency exits other than the rear emergency exit door and side emergency exit door/rear push-out window which Standard No. 217 requires of all school buses.

ID: nht94-2.4

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harry C. Gough, P.E. -- Automotive Engineering Professional Specialist, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/2/93 from Harry C. Gough to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC 9398)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of December 2, 1993, with respect to the term "alternately flashing" as it applies under Safety Standard No. 108 to school bus lamps. You ask for our opinion because a manufacturer of strobe lighting has supplied document ation indicating that the system complies with Standard No. 108.

According to your letter, in this system, the lamp on one side of the school bus (front and rear) "flashes on and off four times in a 255 millisecond period and then stays off for 745 milliseconds, then the lamp on the opposite side of the bus repeats th e aforementioned pattern." You inquire as to whether "alternately flashing" refers to this pattern, "or do the four distinct on/off cycles on each side of the school bus defeat the intent of the term alternating."

As you know, paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, which requires that school bus warning lamp systems "flash alternately." We believe that the light emanating from a st robe lamp that flashes four times in 0.255 second will be perceived as a single flash of varying intensity and not as four separate flashes, and that when this is followed by an identical pattern on the other side of the bus, the system is one that is al ternately flashing within the meaning of Standard No. 108.

Further, under this interpretation, the flash rate meets SAE J887's specification of 60-120 flashes a minute. Unlike other SAE materials incorporated by reference relating to signal lamps (e.g., J1133 School Bus Stop Arms in Standard No. 131 School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices and J590b Automotive Turn Signal Flashers in Standard No. 108), J887 contains no "percent current 'on' time" requirements.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht94-2.40

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Rhein -- Fisher-Price, Inc. (East Aurora, NY)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/3/93 from John Rhein to John Womack (OCC 8639)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the consumer registration card required by Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask about three features of a registration card you wish to produce, and enclosed a sample card setting forth a "proposed format." You first ask whether you may specify "Please Print" on the card. The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting this feature, in an October 20, 1993 letter to Mr. Richard Glover of the Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company.

You also ask whether you may use "open box spaces" for the consumer's name and address, to encourage consumers to print the information clearer (one character per box space). The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting "blocked squa res" for the consumer's name and address in a June 14, 1993 notice (copy enclosed) denying Evenflo's petition for reconsideration of the rule that established the registration card requirement.

Finally, you ask whether you may enlarge the consumer name and address space of the card, to provide consumers more space to print the information and thus increase the likelihood the information will be legible. The answer, with reference to the sample card you provided, is yes. Under S5.8 of Standard 213, the registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). The figures specify a minimum size for the card. Moreover, in the enclosed Ju ne 1993 notice, NHTSA explained that "(f)ormat refers to the general appearance of the form and to aspects such as type size, size and placement of margins, size and placement of the spaces for the consumer's name and address, and overall organization of the printed material."

The sample card you provided meets the minimum size requirement specified in the standard, and the general appearance and overall organization of the card is the same as that depicted in the standard (figure 9a). While the consumer name and address spac e is slightly larger than depicted in the standard, we conclude that this slight deviation is consistent with the standard's format requirements. This conclusion is based on the fact that this slight change does not affect the general appearance or over all organization of the card, and because the change provides consumers more space to print the information, i.e., it will not detract from the utility of the card.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions.

ID: nht94-2.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Moore -- Ferrucci Nurseries (Newfield, NJ)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/4/94 from John Moore to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9645)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 4, 1994, requesting verification of a statement made by a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) employee that you are allowed to install passenger seats in a van used for farm transportation if yo u comply with the safety regulations. In a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that you would like to add seats to the rear of a 14 foot cargo van which the nursery owns. You would be performing this work yourself. As exp lained below, Federal law does not apply to situations where vehicle owners alter their own vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new moto r vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards which could be relevant to installation of a seat in a used vehicle: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No.208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblie s, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your situation, to vehicles and not directly to i tems of equipment. Standard No. 209, however, applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if you ins tall new seat belts on the seats, the manufacturer is required to certify that the seat belts comply with Standard No. 209.

If a seat is installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as an item of equipment, does not have to comply with any Federal standards. However, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in comp liance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

None of these entities could install seats in your van if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards. Please note, however, that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in a situation where you as an individual vehicle owner, installed seats in your own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. H owever, you should be aware that individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

While Federal law would not apply to a modification you make to your own vehicle, I nonetheless urge you to exercise care in installing the seats and to install seat belts on the seats. The seats and seat belts will not provide any protection to occupan ts if they separate from the vehicle frame in a crash. Also, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of New Jersey regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/90

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

TO: LINDA B. KENT -- SENIOR MARKET DEVELOPMENT FASSON SPECIALTY DIVISION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/06/89 FROM LINDA B. KENT -- FASSON SPECIALTY DIVISION TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 3724

TEXT: Dear Ms. Kent:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the use of a product on motor vehicles would violate Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205). This product, called "Contra Vision," is designed to display messages or adver tising materials on windows and other clear surfaces, so that viewers on one side of the clear surface will see the message displayed, while viewers on the other side of the surface will see an essentially transparent surface without any message visible. According to your letter, this product "will be used for promotional signage in store windows, but also has application in rear taxicab windows, as well as rear and side windows of city buses." You asked for our opinion of whether this product complies with Standard No. 205.

Some background on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulation affect this product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and n ew items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify th at its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Your letter indicates that you are already aware that NHTSA has issued a safety standard that applies to the windows installed in motor vehicles. Specifically, Standard No. 205 requires that all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in moto r vehicles must comply with certain performance requirements. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A

minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and t he rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with Contra Vision installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and the Contra Vision must allow at least 70 percent light transmit tance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install Contra Vision on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with th e 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install Contra Vision if the addition of Cont ra Vision to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result i n Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install Contra Vision or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longe r comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicles window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about thi s topic, please fee free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/90

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

TO: JAMES A. COWAN, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING CROWN COACH INCORPORATED

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/24/89 FROM JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC TO ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA; RE FMVSS 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE; OCC 2847; LETTER DATED 11/29/88 FROM JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; RE FMVSS 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cowan:

This is in response to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217: Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Your letter explained that Crown plans to sell one prototype school bus model which was developed but not produced, and which contains a side emergency exit which is wider than required under Standard No. 217. Because of the wider door, the seatback of the passenger seat located immediately forward of the emergency exit door intrudes into the emergency door exit opening. You have requested an interpretation as to whether this is consistent with Standard No. 217. The answer to your question is no.

Standard No. 217 specifically requires that "[a] vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seatback shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." S5.4.2.1(b). This requirement prohibits the forward seat or seatback fr om extending into the door opening regardless of the size of the door opening. Therefore, as it is now configured, the bus you have described in your letter is not in compliance with Standard No. 217.

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions concerning this issue.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 9, 1990

FROM: MEHDI ROWGHANI -- DALLAS EUROPEAN PARTS DISTRIBUTORS

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO MEHDI ROWGHANI FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 214; PART 541) TEXT:

We are importers/distributors of parts for European cars. We are repeatedly asked by our customers if importation and sale of European doors (without reinforcement bars) is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation . May we request you to clarify this point for us.

ID: nht90-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/90

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

TO: SCOTT K. HILER -- MANAGER, R & D LAB C. E. WHITE CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/27/89 FROM SCOTT K. HILER -- CE WHITE COMPANY TO NHTSA; OCC 4212

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hiler:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR @571.210). Specifically, you asked if the strength test set forth in that standard requires simultaneous testing of all the safety belt an chorages for a passenger seat in school buses wiht a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds orless, when those anchorages are installed on the seat frame, or whether those anchorages can be tested individually. The answer is that such ancho rages are tested individually under the current provisions of the strength test in Standard No. 210.

Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.222) establishes the occupant protection requirements for passenger seating positions in school buses. Section S5(b) of Standard No. 222 provides that school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, among other standards. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 sets forth the strength test for anchorages. Section S4.2.4 reads as follows: "Except for common seat belt anchorages for forward-facing and rearward-facing seats, floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions shall be tested by simultaneously loading the seat belt assemblies attached to those anchorages."

Note that the only anchorages subject to a simultaneous testing requirement are floor-mounted anchorages. The anchorages described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed with that letter are mounted on the seat frame. Therefore, those anch orages would not be tested simultaneously to determine compliance with Standard No. 210.

I should aslo point out that NHTSA has proposed to amend section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210 so that all seat and floor-mounted anchorages common to one seat would be tested simultaneously during the strength test. I have enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information. The interpretation in this letter may no longer be correct after the effective date of any final rule adopting that proposal.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE