ID: nht95-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 27, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Fredd Scheys -- President, S.E.C. Carat, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/25/95 Fax from Fredd Scheys to John Womack; Also attached to 3/8/93 letter from John Womack to Fredd Scheys; Also attached to 11/16/92 letter from Rice to Scheys

TEXT: Dear Mr. Scheys:

This responds to your FAX of January 25, 1995, to John Womack of this Office asking whether the interpretation letter sent to you on November 16, 1992, and confirmation letter sent you on March 8, 1993, remain valid.

This confirms that these letters remain valid. We note that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) was recodified in July 1994. The correct citation today is 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety.

The first full paragraph of the second page of the November 16, 1992, letter refers to "Title 15, United States Code, section 1397(b)(2)." Under the recodification, the citation has become "Title 49 United States Code, section 30122(b)". Further, the qu oted phrase in that paragraph that reads "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device of element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard" has been restated to read "knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." But the meaning remains the same and there is no substantive change in the prohibition.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht95-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 27, 1995

FROM: J. Randle Schick, Assistant Chief Counsel, Illinois Dept. Of Transportation

TO: Susan Kunkel; John Womack

TITLE: SB 52

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO EDWARD GOWER (A43; PART 571.3)

TEXT: The Chief Counsel has asked me to respond to your question whether he concurs with Mr. Myers' interpretation of the United States Code. I do not concur with his interpretation that a vehicle dealer is prohibited by federal law from selling a van, which is not a school bus, with a capacity of more than 10 passengers to be used for school transportation.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are manufacturing standards. A school bus must be manufactured to certain federal standards. The manufacturer must certify to the dealer that a school bus has been manufactured to that standard. Federal law d oes not take the next step and require the dealer to sell only school buses for school transportation. State law, and only state law, governs the operation of school buses by schools and sets those requirements. If schools are authorized by state law t o use vans which are not school buses, a school can do so and can purchase a van for that purpose.

I believe what Mr. Myers had in mind is that if a school is shopping for a school bus, the dealer has to sell the school a bus that is certified as a school bus.

ATTACHMENT

SENATE BILL NO. 52

89th GENERAL ASSEMBLY

State of Illinois

1995 and 1996

(Prefiled January 10, 1995)

Introduced January 11, 1995, By Senator Watson

SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED

105 ILCS 5/29-6.3 new 625 ILCS 5/1-182 from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-182 625 ILCS 5/11-1414.1 from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1414.1 Amends the School Code to provide that school districts may transport up to 15 students to and from interscholastic or school sponsored activities in a van under certain conditions. Amends the Vehicle Code to provide that these vans do not fall under the definition of a "school bus". Effective immediately.

Fiscal Note Act may be applicable

AN ACT concerning school property and transportation, amending named Acts.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The School Code is amended by adding Section 29-6.3 as follows:

(105 ILCS 5/29-6.3 new)

Sec. 29-6.3. Transportation to and from specified interscholastic or school sponsored activities. Any school district may transport not more than 15 students to and from an interscholastic athletic or other interscholastic or school sponsored activi ty in a motor vehicle designed for the transportation of not less than 7 nor more than 16 persons commonly referred to as a van, provided that the van is operated by or for the district under a rental or for hire arrangement entered into by the district with respect to the specific activity in connection with which such transportation is to be furnished, and provided further that any school district furnishing transportation for students under the authority of this Section shall insure against any loss or liability of the district resulting from the maintenance, operation, or use of the vehicle in a company licensed and authorized to write such coverage in this State.

Section 10. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by changing Sections 1-182 and 11-1414.1 as follows:

(625 ILCS 5/1-182) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-182) Sec. 1-182. School bus.

(a) "School bus" means every motor vehicle, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this Section, owned or operated by or for any of the following entities for the transportation of persons regularly enrolled as students in grade 12 or below in connect ion with any activity of such entity:

Any public or private primary or secondary school;

Any primary or secondary school operated by a religious institution; or

Any public, private or religious nursery school.

(b) This definition shall not include the following:

1. A bus operated by a public utility, municipal corporation or common carrier authorized to conduct local or interurban transportation of passengers when such bus is not traveling a specific school bus route but is:

On a regularly scheduled route for the transportation of other fare paying passengers; Furnishing charter service for the transportation of groups on field trips or other special trips or in connection with other special events; or

Being used for shuttle service between attendance centers or other educational facilities.

2. A motor vehicle of the First Division.

3. A motor vehicle designed for the transportation of not less than 7 nor more than 16 persons that is operated by or for a public or private primary or secondary school, including any primary or secondary school operated by a religious institution, for the purpose of transporting not more than 15 students to and from interscholastic athletic or other interscholastic or school sponsored activities.

(Source: P.A. 83-299.)

(625 ILCS 5/11-1414.1) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1414.1) Sec. 11-1414.1. School transportation of students. (a) Every student enrolled in grade 12 or below in any entity listed in paragraph (a) of Section 1-182 of this Code who is transported in a seco nd division motor vehicle owned or operated by or for that entity, in connection with any official activity of such entity, must be transported in a school bus or a bus described in subparagraph (1) of paragraph (b) of Section 1-182.

(b) This Section shall not apply to any second division vehicle being used by such entity in a parade, homecoming or similar school activity, nor to a motor vehicle designed for the transportation of not less than 7 nor more than 16 persons while that vehicle is being operated by or for a public or private primary or secondary school, including any primary or secondary school operated by a religious institution, for the purpose of transporting not more than 15 students to and from interscholastic ath letic or other interscholastic or school sponsored activities. (Source: P.A. 83-299.)

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

ID: nht95-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 3, 1995

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Exec. Dir., NYSBDA

TO: Walter Myers -- Counsel Staff, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/13/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO RICHARD KREUTLIGER (A43; STD. 217; PART 571.3)

TEXT: I MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR RETURNING MY TELEPHONE CALL THIS DATE.

THE QUESTION AS POSED TO YOU ON THE TELEPHONE RELATING TO THE AMENDED FMVSS 217 PERTAINS DIRECTLY WITH THE PROTRUSION OF THE "FLIP" SEAT THAT IS POSITIONED DIRECTLY TO THE REAR OF THE LEFT SIDE (CENTER) EMERGENCY DOOR.

AS NOTED ON THE FOLLOWING DRAWING - THE BOTTOM OF THE FRAMEWORK OF THE "FLIP" SEAT DOES EXTEND BEYOND THE "DOOR OPENING". THE EXTENSION VARIES UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 3/4 INCH. EVEN WITH THIS "INVASION" OF THE DOOR OPENING THERE IS NO OBSTRUCTION TO THE DOOR LATCH MECHANISM - AND A DIMENSION OF 11.75" OF CLEAR "AISLE" SPACE IS PROVIDED. THIS AISLE SPACE IS CLEAR TO THE LONGITUDINAL BODY CENTER LINE.

THE DIMENSION IS ACQUIRED THRU THE LOCATION OF THE FORWARD SEAT, IN ACTUAL PRODUCTION THE SEAT AT THE FORWARD EDGE OF THE LEFT SIDE (CENTER) EMERGENCY DOOR IS LOCATED MORE FORWARD THAN THAT AS DEPICTED FROM THE FMVSS DRAWING.

AS PER OUR VERBAL CONVERSATION - AND YOUR UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME OF THAT VERBAL CONVERSATION OF THE "QUESTION" YOU COMMENTED THAT "AS LONG AS THERE WAS 30 CENTIMETERS (11.7 +") THERE SHOULD BE NO SERIOUS PROBLEM OR OBJECTION".

HOPE THE WRITTEN QUESTION IS PRESENTED PROPERLY AND THAT THE FOLLOWING DRAWING IS ACCEPTABLE - THAT I CAN ASSUME TO HEAR FROM YOU WITH WRITTEN CONFIRMATION PROMPTLY.

THANK YOU.

ID: nht95-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth Sghia-Hughes -- Research Engineer, Solectria Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 12/8/94 letter from Kenneth Sghia-Hughes to Chief Counsel (OCC 10572)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We have received your letter of December 8, 1994, with respect to the applicability of two Federal motor vehicle safety standards to electric vehicles.

With respect to Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity, you believe that the language of S3 implies that "it applies to all passenger vehicles, but to only those trucks with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 de grees F." You conclude, however, that "this standard appears not to apply to electric vehicles with no liquid fuel."

Under S3 of Standard No. 301, the standard applies to certain specified vehicles that "use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F". The use of the fuel is not stated. Obviously, electric vehicles do not use liquid fuel for propulsion, but some of them do use a small amount of liquid fuel in their heating systems. Standard No. 301 would apply to an electric vehicle with a fuel-fired heating system.

With respect to Standard No. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, you ask for "a clarification of this standard with regard to single speed transmissions" and, if it is applicable, ask that S3.1.3 "be rewritten or interpreted to include the initial activation of EV motor controllers as well as engine starters."

NHTSA has previously concluded that electric vehicles with single speed transmissions are excluded from Standard No. 102 (58 FR at 4646). I enclose a copy of the Federal Register notice reflecting this conclusion.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht95-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gerard Bonvin -- Auto Cheyenne USA Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 12/15/94 letter from Gerard Bonvin to Philip Recht (OCC 10566)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bonvin:

This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1994, with respect to the relationship of certain DOT regulations to the Cheyenne, a small front-wheel drive utility vehicle that you wish to import and distribute in the United States.

You have asked the following questions:

"What are the procedure to follow in order to be categorize Small Volume manufacturer?"

Your question assumes that we have a category of "small volume manufacturer." We do not, and there is no exclusion from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) based upon the volume produced by the manufacturer. All motor vehicles must comply with all FMVSS, unless the agency has exempted them from one or more of the standards. We do recognize limited production volume in the regulation under which a manufacturer who produces less than 10,000 motor vehicles of all types may apply for a temp orary exemption on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship, and must provide production information as part of its application.

"Is there really a big difference on the test in order to certified between small volume and over 10000 vehicles?"

As indicated above, if a manufacturer produces less than 10,000 vehicles, that fact is relevant only if that manufacturer wishes to file a hardship exemption application. If a small volume manufacturer has not been exempted, it must comply with the same requirements as apply to those whose yearly production exceeds 10,000.

"Is there any difference between two seaters or four seaters on crash test?"

That is a question to be answered by a vehicle manufacturer. If a four-seater is heavier than a two-seater, the difference in weight could make a difference in whether a vehicle with a borderline design passes or fails a crash test.

"Is there a rear crash impact?"

Yes. FMVSS No. 301 Fuel System Integrity specifies a 30 m.p.h. moving barrier rear impact test.

"Do we need Air Bags if we have Seat belts?"

Currently, vehicles like the Cheyenne are not required to have air bags. However, as explained below, air bags are one means of complying with a the automatic protection requirement which is being phased in for vehicles like the Cheyenne, and eventually the Cheyenne will be required to have air bags for both the driver and right front passenger.

Generally, Jeep-type vehicles are considered to be "multipurpose passenger vehicles" (MPVs). Based on your description, we also assume that the Cheyenne will have a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. A requirement in FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection , which is being phased in requires a specified percentage (varying by year) of each manufacturer's light trucks (a category which includes MPVs with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less) manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 to be equipped with automatic crash protection. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts and air bags.

A recent amendment of FMVSS No. 208 will require at least 80 percent of each manufacturer's light trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 and before September 1, 1998 to be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder belt at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions. All light trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 must be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder belt at these seating positions.

"Do we need a buzzer for the seat belt?"

Yes, an audible warning indicator is required.

"Is the dashboard need to be padded?"

We cannot answer your question. That decision is to be made by the manufacturer if its tests show that the dashboard is within the head impact area and that some type of padding is necessary to meet FMVSS No. 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. The FMVSS are performance standards and we do not impose design restrictions on the manufacturer, such as requiring that the dashboard be padded.

"Is there any specific ways on how to install the windshield?"

No, because that would be design restrictive and, as noted above, the FMVSS are performance standards. The performance requirement for windshields is in FMVSS No. 212 Windshield Retention which specifies what the windshield mounting must do in a 30 mph frontal barrier crash. However, if the MPV is an open vehicle with a fold-down windshield, FMVSS No. 212 does not apply to it.

"What is the surface of the windshield that need to wiped? As far as Windshield Wipers, how many cycles and how many different speed?"

You will find the answers to your questions in FMVSS No. 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. For a copy of these and all our regulations, you should have a copy of "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999". This is available from the U.S. Government Bookstore at ARCO Plaza, C-Level, 505 South Flower Street, Los Angeles.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lori A. Hawker

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/29/94 letter from Lori A. Hawker to NHTSA Chief Council (OCC 10536)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Hawker:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a product you wish to manufacture. You describe the product as "bunting" that fits inside an infant-only car seat. (An infant-only seat is lightweight and is easily used as an infant carr ier to carry an infant to and from the car.) The bunting is intended as a substitute for a blanket. You state that the bunting has slots through which the harness on the car seat is threaded and the buckle of the harness is attached to the car seat. Yo u believe that, when properly installed, "the bunting in no way interferes with the adjustment or function of the safety straps or buckle mechanism."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, appro ve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the information in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to your product. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor veh icle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (S4 of FMVSS 213) The standard does not apply to child seat accessories that are sold separately from the child seats, such as car seat pillows, pads and bunting.

While no FMVSS applies to the bunting, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be resp onsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the bunting would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. Standard 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for infant seats. Any person listed in @ 30122 who installs the bunting must ensure that the product does not vitiate the seat's compliance with those fla mmability resistance requirements.

The prohibition of @ 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

I would like to close with the following remarks. It is crucial for the safety of an infant that the straps of its infant seat retain the baby's torso in a crash. Excessive slack in the straps due to the straps binding up on a fabric liner in the seat (such as bunting material), or because of excessive compression of the liner, can cause shoulder straps to move off an infant's shoulders. As a consequence, the infant can be ejected from the seat. We know that you recognize the importance of the strap s in a crash, and that you believe that the bunting will not interfere with their adjustment or function. We underscore the importance of this feature. Bunting material that degrades the ability of an infant seat to restrain its occupant would be an ob vious safety problem.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/8/94 letter from Jane L. Dawson to NHTSA Chief Counsel

TEXT: Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1994, regarding the test procedure in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer can certify that a passenger seat c omplies with Standard No. 210 with the seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. If the seat manufacturer can certify using 1/2" steel plate, your letter also asks whether the final stage school bus manufacturer must retest using a typical 14 gauge school bus floor to certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 210.

By way of background information, each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, as your letter recognizes, manufacturers are not required to test thei r products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with all relevant standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its produ cts to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

Section S2 of Standard No. 210 states that the standard applies to "passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses." The standard does not apply to seats as items of equipment. Therefore, it is the vehicle manufacturer rather than th e seat manufacturer that is required to certify compliance with the standard. More specifically, the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the vehicle, with the seat installed, complies with Standard No. 210. Of course, one of the bases for the vehicl e manufacturer's certification may be test results and other information provided by the seat manufacturer.

If the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analys is, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b) (2) (A)).

Standard No. 210 includes strength requirements for seat belt anchorages. The test procedure requires the specified force to be applied through body blocks at specified angles and for specified periods of time. As you state in your letter, the procedur e allows the agency to replace the seat belt webbing with "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the seat belt assembly." If substitute material is used, the test procedure requires the material to "duplica te the geometry, at the initiation of the test, of the attachment of the originally installed seat belt assembly." This provision was included to ensure that the material was strong enough to pass the load to the anchorage during the test and, therefore, that the strength of the test anchorage rather than the seat belt was tested.

Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer may base its certification on a test performed with the seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. This, in effect, is a reques t for a determination of whether a vehicle manufacturer's reliance on the fact that the seat belt anchorages did not fail when a 1/2" steel plate test fixture is used would constitute "reasonable care" in assuring that the completed vehicle complied with the standard. This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. However, I would like to say that attac hment of a seat or anchorage to stronger material (whether 1/2" steel plate or some other material) than the material used in the construction of the vehicle in which it will actually be installed would not appear to provide a manufacturer with informati on on whether or not the anchorage, when attached to the vehicle structure, will withstand the specified loads.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

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.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht95-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Randal K. Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for interpretations of FMVSS 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/3/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO RANDAL K. BUSICK (A43; STD. 210)

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

This is to request a clarification of several aspects of FMVSS 210 location requirements

1. Section 4.3 states that "Anchorages that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 . . . . are exempt from the location requirements of this section."

In a Federal Register notice of December 5, 1991, the agency stated that: "Since a March 14, 1988 interpretation letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber of Mercedes-Benz, the agency has considered a manual 3-point belt installed at a seating position equipped with an SIR system to be exempt from the location requirements of Standard No. 210 . . . . the agency is amending S4.3 to clarify, consistent with agency interpretation this section, that the anchorages for all seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 are exempt from the location requirements."

Does this mean that if a vehicle with 2 front seating positions is fitted with an air bag and manual three-point seat belt at each position, and this restraint system meets the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the air bags alone and with the belts and air bags together, but the belts alone are not crash tested under FMVSS 208, that the seat belt assemblies are exempt from the location requirements of Standard No. 210?

2. Could you please clarify what is meant, in sections S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2, by an installation in which the "belt bears upon" or "does not bear upon" the seat frame? In addition to an explanation, a few examples would be useful.

3. As regards a rear non-adjustable seat, would the anchorage system set forth in the attached photographs and diagram comply with the location requirements of S4.3.1.1(a)? We believe that it would because the relevant angle is from the seating referen ce point to the point where the end of the belt fastens to the bracket (labeled "belt and buckle pivot/fixing").

On April 30, 1990, NHTSA amended section 4.3.1.1(a) to read: "If the seat is a nonadjustable seat, then a line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt WITH THE HARDWARE ATTACHING IT TO THE ANCHORAGE shall . . . ." (Em phasis added.) By notice dated December 5, 1991, the agency deleted the phrase" hardware attaching it to the anchorage", because in that same notice, NHTSA amended the definition of "anchorage" to include "attachment hardware". The agency specifically stated that t he above phrase was therefore superfluous. This deletion, however, should not have changed anything substantively, and because the attached design would comply with the section as worded on April 30, 1990, we believe that the design complies with sectio n 4.3.1.1(a) as it reads today.

We look forward to your reply. Kindly direct your response or any questions to our Colorado office, P.O. Box 1015, Golden CO 80402-1015 (Tel. 303 279 0203). Thank you.

ID: nht95-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Randal K. Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/22/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO RANDAL BUSICK (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

This is in response to the letter of Mr. Philip Recht to Vehicle Science Corporation dated January 5, 1995 regarding our previous request for an interpretation of S7.1.2 of FMVSS 208.

In the final paragraph of his letter, Mr. Recht indicated that the agency's technical staff raised concerns about the "SLIDER BAR" to which the outboard lower end of the seat belt is attached (see attached diagram, "Attachment # 1"). Mr. Recht further st ated that the staff is concerned that the bar allows the seat belt webbing to slide freely fore and aft longitudinally. Mr. Recht concluded by saying that this design may prevent the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of FMVSS 208 as well as prevent the anchorage from meeting the location requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS 210.

Enclosed for your review are more detailed photographs and diagrams of the slider bar ("Attachment # 2"). Please note that the purpose of the slider bar is to allow ingress and egress to and from the rear seats of a 2-door vehicle. This system is very s imilar to the system used in the 3 series BMW coupe. The seat belt assembly (with slider bar) contemplated herein will be crash tested with an air bag under the requirements of FMVSS 208.

The forward (hooked) end of the slider bar is the point at which the belt always comes to rest when in use (buckled). This point is within the angle required by FMVSS 210 S4.3.1.1(b), and we therefore believe that the anchorage location requirements of Standard 210 are met.

In sum, once the crash test requirements and injury criteria of FMVSS 208 are met, together with applicable requirements of FMVSS 209 and 210, we do not see how the system "may prevent" the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of FMVSS 208 or the anchorage from meeting the location requirements of FMVSS 210.

Kindly respond to the Vehicle Science Colorado office, P.O. Box 1015, Golden, CO 80402-1015 (Tel. 303 279 0203) so that we can discuss this further and swiftly resolve the issues presented herein.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Attachments: (Drawings and Photos omitted)

ID: nht95-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Motorcycle Turn Signal Pilot Indicator Interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/3/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEFFREY D. SHETLER (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. is hereby requesting an interpretation from NHTSA regarding the applicability to motorcycles of the Turn Signal Pilot Indicator Lamp requirements within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84.

When reviewing Table III of FMVSS 108 (Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment) and its applicability to motorcycle turn signal lamps, we are referred to SAE J588, November 1984. SAE J588 not only specifies turn signal lamp requirements but also speci fies other related requirements such as the need for a turn signal pilot indicator lamp, if the turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver.

Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84 indicates the illuminated turn signal pilot indicator lamp, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow colored light.

All Kawasaki motorcycles designed for use on public roads and sold in the United States are equipped with turn signal lamps meeting the requirements of FMVSS 108. In addition, all Kawasaki motorcycles having turn signal lamps are equipped with an illumi nated pilot indicator lamp (yellow colored).

Table III within FMVSS 123; Motorcycle Controls and Displays, specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification. However, FMVSS 123 does not specify color requirements for the turn signal pilot indicator lamp.

In future model years, Kawasaki would like to change the current yellow colored light that illuminates our motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps to a green colored light. However, when reviewing SAE J588 NOV84 and FMVSS 123, we cannot determine w ith confidence if it would be allowed.

When reviewing the language within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84, it seems evident this section was written with passenger cars in mind and not motorcycles. "5.4.3.3 - If the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for exam ple on the front fenders, they should emit a yellow colored light and have a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 mm." It is our belief the color and area requirements are specified within this section to insure visibility by the driver because the l ocation of the indicator lamp would be a greater distance away from the drivers eye than a indicator lamp located inside the vehicle on the dash panel.

FMVSS 123 does not need to address distance from the drivers eye, color, or size of the turn signal pilot indicator lamp because the location of the indicator lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the drivers eye.

Motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps are, in most cases, located within the main instrument panel of the motorcycle with other instrumentation such as speedometer, tachometer, oil pressure gage or warning light, fuel level gage, and transmission neutral indicator. The main instrument panel on motorcycles is usually located between the handlebars and the headlamp. In some cases, motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps are located away from the main instrument panel on the fuel tank, or wit hin a separate panel between the motorcycles fuel tank and handlebars. When considering these locations and their distance from the drivers eye, we believe any pilot lamp light color would be acceptable.

When reviewing current FMVSS requirements (FMVSS 108 / FMVSS 123), we believe we are not limited to using only a yellow color for the lamp of our turn signal pilot indicators because FMVSS 123 does not specify color requirements for turn signal indicator lamps. However, as indicated above, we are not entirely confident our interpretation of the requirements is correct because of the yellow color requirement specified within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84. Therefore, we are requesting your assistance in resolving this matter.

Thank you in advance for your timely response to our request.

If further information is required, I can be reached at (714) 770-0400 ext 2456.