ID: nht94-3.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Tunick

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/18/94 from Federico Trombi to Taylor Vinson

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter of July 18, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to whether the headlamp system you describe complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The system is comprised of two headlamps. In each lamp, the lower beam will be provided by a gas discharge unit and the upper beam by either one European H-1 unit, or by the H-1 together with the gas discharge unit (or, alternatively, by two gas dischar ge units). Both lamp units would be sealed in a "box" so that they could not be replaced by the vehicle owner. The "box" would also contain a third light source, mounted outboard of the lower beam gas discharge unit, to be used for purposes other than headlighting.

As you note, this assemblage is an "integral beam headlamp" as defined by S4 of Standard No. 108 because it contains light sources that are neither sealed beam nor replaceable. Thus, it must conform with the requirements of S7.4 Integral Beam Headlighti ng System. You have noted that the lamp, in fact, will "comply with S7.4(a)(2) and the photometric requirements of either (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii)", which apply to two-lamp integral beam headlighting systems.

In your view, the lamp meets the requirement of Table IV that the lower beams be mounted "as far apart as practicable" because the configuration of the car body does not permit mounting the gas discharge unit any farther outboard. Further, the lamp "wou ld be in conformity with S7.4(b) as the lamp would have 2 light sources and the lower beam would be provided by the most outboard light source [of those regulated

2

by Standard No. 108] . . . and the upper beam would be provided by either the most inboard light source or both the gas discharge" and H-1 light sources.

We concur in your conclusion that this system is permissible under Standard No. 108.

ID: nht94-3.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 29, 1994

FROM: Roger Matoba

TO: Patricia Breslin -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Shoulder Belts for Passenger Vans

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-28-94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT (JOHN WOMACK) TO ROGER MATOBA (A42; STD. 208)

TEXT: This letter is a request to review the requirement for shoulder belts for "outboard passengers" on passenger van vehicles. Current vehicle manufacturer's interpretation of Rule FMVSS-208 calls for the installation of shoulder type seatbelts on righthand and lefthand outboard passenger seating positions. This creates a potential safety hazard on benchseat passenger van vehicles with side aisle access to rear seating locations. Manufacturers are installing shoulder type seat belts for passengers locate d on the righthand side of the vehicle. When these shoulder type belts are latched into position, they cross the side passenger aisle way, making it impossible for passengers in rear seating locations to exit or enter a vehicle. Should an emergency situ ation occur, rear seat passengers will be unable to quickly and safely evacuate a vehicle. Likewise, emergency personnel will be unable to quickly enter the rear portion of the vehicle to render aid.

The 1992 model year van passenger vehicles are equipped with standard lapbelts for rightside passengers next to the aisle, and shoulder belts for the leftside outboard passengers next to the window. In 1993, this was changed to comply with FMVSS-208 for all "outboard passenger" seating positions to be equipped with shoulder type belts. This has resulted in the situation described above where rear seat passengers cannot exit past middle seat passengers who have their outboard shoulder seatbelts latched into place.

I propose that this rule be changed, or clarified, to eliminate the requirement for shoulder type belts on outboard seat positions when the seat position is located next to a side aisle way. Right side aisles are typically 12-16 inches wide from the veh icle wall to the seat. Passengers seated on the righthand side of the vehicle in this seat position are not actually "outboard passengers" since there is an aisle space between them and the vehicle wall. Attached is an illustration showing typical seat ing arrangements in passenger vans with rightside aisle ways. Please note that all passenger seats next to the right side aisle have shoulder type belts that cross the aisle. This arrangement of shoulder type belts is a safety hazard because they block the only reasonable emergency path in the vehicle.

As an alternative solution to keeping the current safety rule in place as written, center aisles with split bench seats in van passenger vehicles could be mandated. This would allow for shoulder type belts in outboard seat positions and not hinder emerg ency egress from the vehicle through the center aisle.

I purchased a 1992 model year passenger van instead of a 1993 model year for the very reasons I've described here. I felt the shoulder belt requirement for 1993, and 1994, was not only inconvenient for passengers, but potentially dangerous.

Enclosure

WAGON SEATING ARRANGEMENTS (TEXT AND GRAPHICS OMITTED)

ID: nht94-3.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 1, 1994

FROM: Richard Quigley -- Special Consultant, Ill Eagle Helmet Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/18/94: Letter from John Womack to Richard Quigley (Std. 218)

TEXT: I have reviewed your letter of July 15, 1994, and have come to some conclusions regarding your apparent confusion concerning the "DOT" symbol I sent to you for your approval, and your subsequent emphatic rejection of same.

Let me see if I understand. You are rejecting my "D" on the basis that the computer bitmapped the letter "D" in transmission to your fax machine, so the right side, therefore, had the appearance of "jagged lines at the top and bottom of the letter th at meet in a straight line parallel to the line that forms the left side of the 'D'"; and our letter "O" on the basis that our letter "O" was not a letter "O", but rather just a circle - or a symbol resembling a circle. Have I got that?

I thought everybody had seen "The letter 'O'" segment of Sesame Street: "To make the letter 'O', (just) draw a circle." Big Bird wouldn't lie.

From that lesson, and/or a little common sense, a common person would be led to conclude that sometimes a circle is just a circle, and sometimes its the letter "O". But, our letter "O" isn't a letter "O", its just a circle . . . right? How does that work?

I think you may have been confused by the fact that I had superimposed the name of our company -- "THE ILL EAGLE HELMET COMPANY" -- inconspicuously around the surface of the letter "O", and had placed our unimposing logo in the center of same. How el se could you have been led to the mistake of believing that our letter "O" was just a circle?

So, here is a another version (this time with the bitmapped "D" smoothed out) for you to show around the office. Ask your people if they read it to say "DOT"? The surveys we have taken (our tests) indicate that virtually everybody sees our version o f a "DOT" sticker for just what it is, a "DOT" sticker.

So, other than the problem with our letter "D" (now corrected), and the fact that you were mistaken about our letter "O", do you have any remaining objections to our use of this sticker on helmets that we have certified as being in compliance with FMV SS 218?

If not, we will proceed on the basis that your silence means consent, and thank you for your response.

ID: nht94-3.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herr P. Binder -- ITT Automotive Europe GmbH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/19/94 from P. Binder to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Herr Binder:

This responds to your FAX of July 19, 1994, requesting a reinterpretation of our letter to you of June 21, 1994. You had intended to ask us about taillamps rather than the turn signal lamps which were the subject of our letter.

Your latest letter shows a rear motor vehicle lighting array of four lamps, two on the body and two on the tailgate. The lamps on the body contain turn signals, stop lamps, and taillamps. The lamps mounted on the tailgate contain backup lamps, rear fog lamps, and taillamps. Your letter asks for confirmation of your interpretation that:

"This lighting system is a multiple lamp arrangement, therefore the combination of taillamp 1 and taillamp 2 has to be used to meet the photometric requirements for 2 lighted sections (SAE J585e, 3.1 and Table 1)."

This is correct. Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J585e states that "multiple lamps may be used to meet the photometric requirements of a tail lamp." Note 3 of Table 1 states that "separately lighted sections . . . may be separate lamps", and that the photometric v alues are to apply when all sections that provide the tail signal are considered as a unit.

"Visibility will be judged with tailgate closed."

As we advised you in our earlier letter, this is also correct.

"Only taillamp 2 mounted on the tailgate will meet the requirements for an unobstructed projected illuminated area of 12.5 cm2 measured at 45 deg. inboard. This is in accordance with SAE J 585e; Par. 4."

2

Taillamp 1 and taillamp 2 together comprise the taillamp system. Thus it is not required that taillamp 1 meet the inboard visibility requirements when they are met by taillamp 2.

You have also asked some general questions:

"Are there regulations which lamps has to be mounted on the body and which lamps are allowed on the tailgate?"

No. Table IV's requirement for the location of rear stop, tail, and turn signal lamps is that they be "as far apart as practicable." However, Standard No. 108 does not specify which lamps must be mounted on the body and which are permissible on the tail gate. We encourage manufacturers to mount signal lamps on the body, such as is shown in your drawing.

"Is there a regulation to take an approval test in an authorized test laboratory (e.g. ETL)?"

No. NHTSA has no authority to require a manufacturer to take approval tests or to designate test laboratories of which it approves.

"Which US-Authority has to be informed about this test?"

A manufacturer is not required to inform NHTSA or any other governmental agency about its tests. However, NHTSA has the authority to ask a manufacturer to provide it with copies of test results, and generally does so if it finds failures to meet Standar d No. 108 in its own tests.

"How long is this test valid?"

"After which period has this test to be repeated?"

Under our laws, a lamp manufacturer is required to certify compliance of replacement equipment with Standard No. 108, and it is the manufacturer's determination when it should retest a lamp to verify that its certification of compliance remains correct. In our experience, manufacturers will retest when there are design changes to its products. Manufacturers also

3

engage in surveillance testing of products after they have entered production to ensure that design tolerances continue to be met and that the lamp remains in compliance with the specifications of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht94-3.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Stamped signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Dean Lakhani -- President, Gem Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/27/94 from Dean Lakhani to Office of Chief Counsel (OCC-9927)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lakhani:

This responds to your letter requesting our "unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with" an air bag. Your company is a manufacturer of bumper guards. Recently your cu stomers have indicated that auto manufacturers have stated that installation of a bumper guard in front of a bumper will interfere with the air bag and could void the warranty. This letter will address the effect under Federal laws of the installation o f a bumper guard; however, our agency cannot comment on the effect on a manufacturer's warranty.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. @ 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and ne w items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety s tandards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement sa fety

2

belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles; therefore, if a bumper guard is installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable standards , including Standard No. 208, with the bumper guard installed.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. @ 30122. That section provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not 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 vehicl e safety standard.

Any violation of this provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. This provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing a bumper guard on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a ma nner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard.

Please note that this provision would apply to a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing your product, and not to your company as the manufacturer of the product. Also note that this provision does not apply to modifications veh icle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install a bumper guard on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the saf ety standards. However, States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

You should also note that a bumper guard would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. Therefore, if it contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

It is not possible for NHTSA to provide an "unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with" an air bag. This

3

is because the answer to the question would depend on the designs of the bumper guard, the air bag, and the vehicle as a whole. The discussion which follows illustrates possible problems, identified by our technical staff, which bumper guards could caus e with respect to air bags.

First, a bumper guard attached to the bumper could possibly induce unwarranted air bag deployments if the guard extended vertically below the car bumper. Such a bumper guard could snag on travel surface irregularities, sharp inclines, or sharp incline d eparture angles which might otherwise not engage the vehicle structure. The potential impulsive nature of bumper guard snag might cause air bag deployment to occur at conditions differing from the crash severity for which the original manufacturer desig ned the air bag.

Second, if a bumper guard were attached to the vehicle structure, rather than the bumper, it too could possibly produce deployments that are not intended. Such a system might impose direct loading into the vehicle frame without the energy absorption of t he bumper moderating the impulse experienced by the crash sensor system which is calibrated to measure crash severity.

Third, if a bumper guard were added to the front bumper of a vehicle in such a manner as to change the load path through the bumper to the car structure behind the bumper, it is possible that the crash impulse arriving at the crash sensor location might be altered from that of the original bumper, causing air bag deployment to occur either above or below the original manufacturer's deployment threshold.

We cannot provide an opinion of whether, or under what circumstances, your bumper guard might cause these or other problems. We suggest that you consult with vehicle manufacturers and air bag manufacturers concerning how, and whether, your bumper guard can be installed on air bag-equipped vehicles in a manner that does not create problems.

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: nht94-3.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Stamped signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: William G. Franz -- Vice President Fabrication, Wells Aluminum Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/4/94 from William G. Franz to Walter Myers (OCC 9857)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Franz:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Walter Myers of this office requesting an interpretation of window opening size as provided in paragraph S5.1.2, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explained that Wells Aluminum Corporation manufactures pushout windows for the school bus industry. You asked whether the 8-inch window opening size referred to in paragraph S5.1.2 applies to the "total outside frame dimension" or to each pane of gl ass. "In other words, would a pane of glass which measures less than 8 inches across need to be subject to the retention test [of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 217]?" To illustrate your question, you enclosed with your letter a picture of an upper/lower-pane pushou t window which was positioned for a retention test.

To be excluded from Standard No. 217's window retention requirement, the entire window, and not just a pane of the window, must be less than the 8-inch window opening size described in S5.1.2 of the standard. Section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 217 specifies reten tion requirements for windows other than windshields in buses. Paragraph S5.1.2 provides that those requirements do not apply to "a window whose minimum surface dimension measured through the center of its area is less than 8 inches." This exemption of 8 -inch windows was included in the standard in the final notice establishing the standard, published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1972 (37 FR 9394). In the preamble to that notice the agency stated at 37 FR 9395:

Since there is little likelihood of passenger ejection or protrusion from window openings whose minimum surface dimension measured through the center of the area is less than 8 inches, an exemption for windows of this size has been granted (emphasis adde d).

2

It is clear that the intent of the agency in providing this exemption was to exempt window openings, as measured by the perimeter of the window, not just individual panes of glazing material. A window can be composed of more than one pane of glazing mat erial, such as the window in the picture you provided, where 1 or more individual panes may have a minimum dimension smaller than 8 inches, but the whole window is larger than 8 inches. Regardless of the size of the individual panes which make up a wind ow, passenger ejection or protrusion could occur through such a window opening. Since ejection through such a window is precisely what the standard was intended to prevent, S5.1 would apply.

We note that you did not explain what you meant by "total outside frame dimension" and the meaning of the quoted phrase is not entirely clear. We assume you meant the entire window opening which, for the window in your picture, would include the combina tion of both panes and the window frame. Thus, for purposes of S5.1.2, we would measure both the pane and the window frame.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ncc-20WMyers; mar:7/25/94:62992:OCC 9857 Ref:217 U: NCC20 INTERP 217 9857.WKM Greenbook: (2); Interps: Std. 217 Coord: NRM, NEF

ID: nht94-3.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Stamped Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: John E. Gillick, Esq. -- Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/16/94 from Gianfranco Venturelli to Christopher Hart

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gillick:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 214, Side impact protection. In the alternative, you also petition NHTSA to grant your client, Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini), a temporary exemp tion from Standard No. 214 until September 1, 1996, pursuant to 49 CFR part 555, Temporary exemption from motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background, on October 30, 1990 (55 FR 45722), NHTSA published a final rule establishing new dynamic performance requirements for Standard No. 214, and two alternative phase-in schedules for manufacturers to comply with the new requirements. Y ou write that Lamborghini was owned by Chrysler Corporation at the final rule's publication, and Lamborghini planned to comply with Standard No. 214's phase-in schedule by being counted as part of Chrysler's fleet.

You write that on January 31, 1994, Chrysler sold Lamborghini. You state that Lamborghini, on its own, is not able to meet either of the two phase-in schedules established in Standard No. 214. Thus, despite Lamborghini's sale, you are asking NHTSA to p ermit Chrysler to include Lamborghini's vehicles as part of Chrysler's fleet for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 214's phase-in schedule.

We are unable to interpret the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 214 as you suggest. This is because these requirements apply to vehicles "produced by more than one manufacturer," and the vehicles in question will not be. Alternatively, we have furt her determined that your request would be most appropriately resolved by treating it as a

2

petition pursuant to part 555. We are presently reviewing your submission pursuant to part 555, and anticipate issuing a proposed decision shortly. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Z. Taylor Vinson of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-3.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1994

FROM: Bruce Monnie -- Senior Designer, ADVANCED DESIGN ASSOCIATES

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/27/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO BRUCE MONNIE (A42; REDBOOK 6; STD. 208; STD. 209; STD. 213)

TEXT: We are going to be manufacturing a product that is used by consumers, to improve the security of childseats. I would like an interpretation from you, of Standards 209 and 213 or any other standards, that may apply. Below is a description of the how the product is to be used.

The product itself is one-piece steel construction, similar to the flat metal brackets included with some childseats already on the market. The bracket is installed on the seatbelt of the vehicle, to prevent slippage between the lap and shoulder port ions of the seatbelt and to tighten up slack in the lap portion of the seatbelt. It is a temporary installation that does not require any alterations to the vehicle, the seatbelt or the childseat. It does not render the seatbelt inoperative. It does n ot attach to the childseat nor does it interfere with the operation of the childseat. The consumer would be the user.

Our expectation is that this product does not fit the definitions as stated in 213, nor does it fall under 209. In the event that some other Standard may apply, I will give you additional information regarding the performance of the bracket. However , we cannot provide you with a drawing or picture of the product at this time.

Again, the bracket is one-piece with no moving parts. The design makes incorrect installation difficult; whether installed correctly or incorrectly, it cannot become a projectile. The strength required to remove the bracket is greater than the typic al 6 year old child would possess. There is no way for the bracket to be installed incorrectly that would impair or defeat the seatbelt. Incorrect installation would not increase slack in the seatbelt. The strength of the bracket itself, is engineered to withstand forces far beyond those occurring in vehicle accidents.

Furthermore, we will be submitting the product to actual crash-testing, to gather performance data. The results of the testing will be made available at a later date.

Please send me a letter stating your interpretation of Standards 209 and 213, as relating to the bracket. If you have any questions or if more information is needed for your interpretation, please contact me at (503) 235-9447. I am usually at my des k between 8am and 1pm, eastern time.

Thank you for your time in considering this request. Any effort on your part to expedite this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 27, 1994

FROM: Keith E. Smith -- Piper & Marbury

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/18/94: Letter from John Womack to Keith E. Smith (VSA 102(4))

TEXT: As I discussed yesterday with Ken Weinstein of your office, by this letter I seek a declaratory statement, in the form of a letter from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), that automotive and/or motorcycle braking systems are considered by NHTSA to be "safety devices". I do not desire, nor do I expect NHTSA to make any declaration regarding the safety of a particular braking system.

It is my understanding that the primary purpose of the National Highway Transportation Safety Act (the "Act") is to promote public safety by establishing motor vehicle safety standards. Such standards, as provided in the regulations promulgated under the Act at 49 CFR @@ 571.105 and 571.122, provide minimum safety guidelines by which braking systems are evaluated. Therefore, by implication, it would seem that automotive and/or mortorcycle braking systems must be considered by NHTSA to be "safety de vices".

If the above representations are correct, I would appreciate a letter confirming so. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht94-3.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1994

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

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject Request For Interpretation - FMVSS 210

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/2/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Jane L. Dawson (A43; Std. 210; VSA 108(b) (2))

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Thomas Built Buses, Inc. is in the process of releasing a school bus passenger seat that may eventually be used on school buses produced by all body manufacturers. Since this is a new product line for us, we have several concerns about certifying compli ance of our seat on other manufacturers' vehicles.

We know that NHTSA recognizes that in many instances due to cost considerations, manufacturers simulate test conditions when performing compliance testing by using test fixtures rather than testing in actual school buses. NHTSA addresses that fact in S5 of FMVSS 210 by requiring that anchorages be "connected to material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment at that seating position" and that "t he geometry of the attachment duplicates the geometry, at the initiation of the test, of the attachment of the originally installed seat belt assembly."

Traditionally, when we test seat belt anchorages on our own school bus passenger seat, the seat is attached to an actual 14 gauge school bus floor, and force is applied according to the testing requirements of FMVSS 210. As a result of the force applica tion, the floor undergoes a certain amount of buckling. As the floor begins to buckle, the angle of the belt relative to the seat frame changes from the belt angle that's present at the initiation of the test.

When the same test is conducted using a school bus passenger seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than an actual floor section, there is no buckling of the floor, therefore, there is no change to the belt angle when the anchorages are subjected to the force requirements of FMVSS 210. Since there's no change to the belt angle, the use of a school bus bench seat mounted on a 1/2" steel plate test fixture doesn't necessarily duplicate the - conditions present when the bench seat is moun ted on an actual school bus floor.

Thomas Built Buses requests an interpretation on the following:

When a seat manufacturer certifies compliance with FMVSS 210 for installation in a school bus, do the requirements of FMVSS 210 allow the seat manufacturer's certification to be based on the seat's more rigid attachment to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture or must the seat manufacturer's certification be based on the seat's attachment to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor?

If the seat manufacturer uses a 1/2" steel plate test fixture, must the final stage school bus manufacturer who installs the seat retest using their own 14 gauge floor before compliance with applicable standards is certified?

Please contact me if you have additional questions or need additional information.

Sincerely