ID: 23871.jeg

Mr. Philip M. Headley
Chief Engineer, Advanced Technologies
Continental Teves
4141 Continental Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Headley:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135. You stated that Continental Teves has developed a system which uses the ABS hydraulic pump to supplement the driver's braking effort in the event of a vacuum booster failure. The system is able to recognize the booster failure and meter hydraulic fluid from the ABS pump to the wheel brakes in response to the driver's pedal force. You are concerned, however, that the driver may not recognize that the vacuum boost failure has occurred, since the brakes may appear to operate normally. Consequently, the driver may not have the vacuum booster problem repaired. A subsequent malfunction of the ABS system could then render the vehicle unable to meet the failed boost requirements of Standard No. 135.

You stated that you believe the prudent action in this case would be to light the brake telltale to alert the driver of the problem. You asked whether this would be permissible under Standard No. 135, given that booster failure is not one of the specified conditions for which the brake telltale is required to be illuminated. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter.

As you noted in your letter, we have previously addressed a similar question from General Motors (GM) in the context of the requirements of Standard No. 105. (Letter to Stephen E. Selander, Esq., dated April 29, 1992.) S5.3.1 of that standard required a brake telltale to illuminate when there was a gross loss of hydraulic pressure (or, alternatively, a drop in fluid level), a total functional electrical failure in the antilock or variable proportioning brake system, and when the parking brake was applied. GM stated that a brake telltale on a planned vehicle would illuminate under these prescribed conditions. That company indicated, however, that a diagnostic capability would also exist to detect other faults in the brake system, and requested the agency's concurrence that S5.3.1 permitted illumination of the brake telltale when other faults were detected which increased the likelihood of a substantial degradation in brake system performance.

We noted that while Standard No. 105 required that a brake telltale be provided which activated under certain specified conditions, it did not expressly state whether the required telltale may also be activated under other conditions. We provided our opinion that the telltale may also activate under other conditions so long as such activation does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required telltale or otherwise defeat its purpose.

We noted that the purpose of the brake telltale was to warn the driver of one of two conditions: (1) the parking brake was applied (and hence should be released before driving), or (2) the brake system had a significant fault which should be corrected. Since the additional conditions for activation which GM contemplated would represent significant brake system faults which should be corrected, it was our opinion that activation of the brake telltale under such conditions would not in any way defeat the purpose of the brake telltale.

We believe the rationale of our interpretation to GM is directly applicable to the question you ask about the very similar brake telltale requirements of Standard No. 135.

S5.5 of Standard No. 135 requires one or more brake telltales to be provided which activate under two types of specified conditions: (1) the parking brake is applied, and (2) the brake system has a significant fault which should be corrected. Since the additional condition for which Continental Teves contemplates activation of the brake telltale also represents a significant fault in the brake system which should be corrected, it is our opinion that activation under that condition would not in any way defeat the purpose of the brake telltale, and is permissible under Standard No. 135.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:135
d.5/30/02

ID: 23894.ztv

Mr. Roger Williams
3140 S. Tropical Trail
Merritt Island, FL 32952





Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in reply to your letter of December 13, 2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with whom you had spoken previously.

As we understand it, you wish to buy a Land Rover, in England, that was manufactured between 1967 and 1975. You would remove the old body and place a new body on the "unrestored" chassis, retaining the original "drive line and engine." The "new" body could be from a new 2001 or 2002 Land Rover, or from a used or salvage Land Rover. We understand that you would then import the Land Rover into the United States. You stated that the vehicle would be imported for your personal use and that you are "not a vehicle business." You are interested in knowing how the laws that we administer would affect your plan.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that we administer apply to any motor vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. However, under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(9), a person may import into the United States "a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old" without the need to conform it to the applicable FMVSS, i.e., those in effect at the time of its manufacture. Thus, any Land Rover manufactured between 1967 and 1975 is "at least 25 years old," and eligible for importation under this exclusion.

The question is whether the addition of a new or newer used body on the existing 1967-75 chassis affects the exclusion afforded by Section 30112(b)(9). Under a long-standing line of interpretations of this agency, the substitution of a new body on a used chassis alone does not result in the creation of a "new" motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS, assuming that the vehicle continues to be titled and registered with its original model year. Thus, under the scheme you outline, the 1967-75 Land Rover with a different body and unmodified chassis could be imported without the need to conform it to the FMVSS.

We contrast this with the situation where refurbishment of a 1967-75 chassis occurs before importation. The substitution of new chassis parts for the original ones may reach a point where, in combination with the newer vehicle body, the overall vehicle itself could be regarded as newly manufactured, rather than one manufactured in 1967-75. In this event, the 25-year exclusion would no longer allow the vehicle to be imported free of the obligation to meet U.S. safety requirements. In a similar situation, we advised John Harland on September 29, 1999, that his extensive rebuilding of 1974 Land Rovers using both new parts and parts from other used Land Rovers would result in the creation of "new" motor vehicles subject to contemporary FMVSS and which could not be imported as vehicles "at least 25 years old."

You have also asked "may the existing engine and transmission be excluded from shipment to have it rebuilt in the U.K. and shipped at a later date?" A vehicle without an engine and transmission is considered to be an assemblage of parts. Some FMVSS apply to individual parts as well as to motor vehicles. Those individual components that are subject to the FMVSS must conform in order to be imported. For multipurpose passenger vehicles such as the Land Rover, these components are brake hoses, lighting equipment, brake hoses, tires, rims, glazing, and seat belt assemblies. There are no FMVSS that apply to engines and transmissions, and these items of equipment could be rebuilt and imported at a later date. Please note, however, that the completed vehicle would be required to comply with state and local requirements for registration.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591
d.2/22/01

ID: 23912.ztv

Mr. Denis Igoe
Automotive Lighting
47000 Liberty Drive
Wixom, MI 48393





Dear Mr. Igoe:

This is in reply to your fax of January 16, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to visually-optically aimable (VOA) headlamps.

You identified yourself as working in the automotive industry" for a "forward lighting manufacturer." With respect to a headlamp currently in production, you wrote that "a proposal for cost savings is to eliminate the horizontal VHAD and the ability to adjust in the horizontal." As you see it, "the issue becomes: through vehicle service it is possible a new headlamp w/o horizontal adjustment (& VHAD) could be paired with an old headlamp with horizontal adjustment (& VHAD) on the very same vehicle." You have asked, "aiming instructions notwithstanding, is this situation compliant or not, with existing NHTSA regs?"

Section S7.8.5.3(b) of Standard No. 108, applicable to VOA headlamps, prohibits horizontal adjustment of horizontal aim of the lower beam of a headlamp unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal VHAD. Thus a horizontal aim adjustment feature is not a requirement for VOA headlamps but an option of the headlamp manufacturer. The situation you posit is one in which a vehicle in service could have one lower beam that was horizontally adjustable and the other lower beam would not be horizontally adjustable.

This headlamp mixture would not be permissible as original equipment on new motor vehicles. Some years ago we were asked by Robert Bosch GmbH whether it would be permissible to install on one side of a vehicle a headlamp with VHAD (onboard aiming) for vertical aim and on the opposite side a VOA headlamp in the case where a vehicle manufacturer wanted to change from VHAD-headlamps to visually aimable headlamps during the production of a certain vehicle type. On March 10, 1998, we replied to Bosch (see the enclosed letter to Tilman Spingler) that "all headlamps within a headlighting system must comply with the same set of requirements, including its aiming features."

We have addressed the issue of compatibility of replacement headlamps in both the preamble to the final rule adopting VOA headlamps and in an interpretation letter to Stanley Electric Co. dated June 22, 1998 (copy enclosed). In the preamble, we observed that "any current headlamp design that is modified to include visual/optical aimability must still provide mechanical aimability if that headlamp is intended to be a replacement in vehicles in which the lamp was used before its redesign" (62 FR 10710 at 10714, March 10, 1997). Citing that language, Stanley informed us that it would modify headlamp aiming features on an existing model headlamp for a new model year headlamp but would continue producing the old design for replacement purposes. The two headlamp designs would have different parts numbers and lens identifiers. Stanley asked for confirmation that the new system need not continue to provide mechanical aimability. We replied to Tadashi Suzuki of Stanley on June 22, 1998, stating that we did not consider the new design to be a "replacement" requiring retention of the mechanically aimable feature because the two headlamps would have different part numbers and lens identifiers. We also advised that Stanley's intent would be "even clearer if the cartons in which each type of replacement headlamp is shipped are marked to identify the specific model year(s) for which replacement is intended."

In your fact situation, we assume that mechanical aimability is not an issue, and that both headlamps are VOA in type. Nevertheless, as we also advised Stanley, "[I]t is not advisable for headlamp on the same vehicle to have to be aimed by two different means." Accordingly we would encourage you to take steps to distinguish the new and old headlamp designs by the means that we suggested to Stanley (different part numbers, lens identifiers, carton marking), to minimize the possibility that a replacement headlamp might be installed that is not identical to the original headlamp, thereby creating a headlighting system that would not comply with the original equipment requirements of Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.4/5/02

ID: 23918.ztv

Mr. Bing Kam
6902 Midhurst
Memphis, TN 38119





Dear Mr. Kam:

This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 2001. Because of the precautions being taken with mail addressed to Federal agencies, we did not receive it until January 16, 2002.

You have asked for an interpretation of the phrase "flashes in use" as used on the advisory sheet regarding lighting inventions which we provided you earlier. This phrase appears in the list of factors which we believe may impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 if present in supplemental lighting equipment not required by the standard. You have raised the possibility that a supplemental lamp whose cycle of flashes is more than 5 seconds might not be considered one that "flashes in use."

Standard No. 108 defines "flash" as "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means continuing until stopped either automatically or manually." The definition does not specify a time rate for a cycle. This means that any cycle of activation and deactivation is a flash, regardless of its duration.

Additionally, in our view, impairment may occur when any supplemental lamp gives the appearance of flashing, e.g., modulating in intensity or varying the illuminated area of the lens.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/8/02

ID: 23938.ztv

Mr. Ed Cadoff
Product Manager
Lighting & Electronic Design, Inc.,
141 Cassia Way, Units B & C
Henderson, NV 89014





Dear Mr. Cadoff:

This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 2001, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. As you know, delivery of mail to Federal offices in Washington has been delayed since October because of the need to ensure that it was free of anthrax spores, and we did not receive your letter until January 14, 2002.

Your letter concerns an electronic "wide turn" LED message sign that your company has developed, called "Right Lite," intended for the rear of large trucks. You refer to a concern with "interference lighting."

Generally, devices such as yours have been deemed permissible. We are enclosing two letters from this office which discuss this issue with reference to "wide load" LED message signs, the first addressed to Representative Charles Wilson (February 19, 1988), and the second to K. Howard Sharp (June 7, 1995).

If you have further questions about these letters or our regulations, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
NCC-20:ZTVinson:mar:1/25/02:62992:OCC 23938
cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron
Interp. 108; redbook (2)
Ztv; 23938; U:\ncc20\interp\108\23938.ztv.doc

ID: 23939.ztv

Mr. Michael Burgess
Sales Manager
Alliance Vehicle Systems
2599 N. Orange Blossom Trail
Kissimmee, FL 34744





Dear Mr. Burgess:

This is in reply to your undated letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office, which we received on January 22, 2002. As you may know, security precautions have caused a slowdown in the delivery of mail to Federal offices. If you sent your letter in the last two months of 2001, that is the reason for our delay in our responding to you.

You have enclosed literature from Vantage Vehicle Group (VVG) and ask whether the group has "met all the criteria by your Department, and has received the proper approvals." This material consists of a cover letter dated August 28, 2001, addressed to "Turf & Golf Industry Dealers" and signed by "Jim Lester," and an information sheet on the vehicles that VVG is offering for sale. The vehicles about which you ask are identified as the "TruckALL," and the "VanGO." VVG identified the vehicles as "small utility trucks and vans," and stated that they are imported directly from Kia Motors of Korea. They are described as suitable "for golf course, utility work, and multi-person transportation."

The same, or similar, Kia vehicles appear to have been the subject of our letter of May 4, 2000, to Ronald R. Shelton of Metro Motors Corporation (copy enclosed). We note, in passing, that Mr. Shelton's address is almost identical to yours (2595 vs. 2599 North Orange Blossom Trail). We sent a similar letter to Mr. Lester on June 26, 2001, a copy of which is enclosed.

We note that VVG's material contains inaccuracies. It stated that "(1) Legal [emphasis in original] importers receive letters from each government agency granting import status for its vehicles to be sold for 'off road' only. Without such approval, fines and other penalties may apply. . . . VVG has met or exceeded all U.S. government requirements for its vehicles and is approved as an importer." This is not an accurate statement. We do not grant "import status" or "approve" persons or companies as importers of off-road vehicles. We provide interpretations upon request as to whether specific vehicles are, or appear to be, manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways (e.g., whether they are motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction). If a vehicle was not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, no Federal approval is required of the importer.

VVG also stated that "U.S. DOT . . . regulations require that importers of vehicles used 'on road' in other countries, provide evidence that its vehicles have been 'speed limited' in a manner consistent with government requirements." It also stated that "The government requires us to limit the speed on our vehicles to a maximum of 25 mph, but the type of limiter is left up to each importer. VVG only installs a U.S. built . . . electronic speed limiter." These statements are incorrect. If a vehicle is used on the public roads in its country of origin, that is a factor that we consider in providing interpretations as to whether a vehicle would be a "motor vehicle" in the United States, even if the intent of the importer is to sell or use it in off-road applications. Speed capability plays little part in these interpretations. The relevant issue is whether the vehicle will be used on the U.S. public streets, roads, and highways, in which case vehicle speed capability may be a factor in determining whether the vehicle is a "motor vehicle" and a "low-speed motor vehicle."

We are providing VVG with a copy of this letter.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
cc: Vantage Vehicle Group
ref:500
d.3/6/02

ID: 2393y

Mr. Joseph Perry
27 Shady Lane
Nashua, NH 03062

Dear Mr. Perry:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to the rules and regulations pertaining to the importation of a kit car. Your letter indicates that the vehicle will utilize both new and used components, some of them imported from England, and the remainder supplied in the United States. I regret the delay in responding.

Specifically, the components you wish to import from England are described as "the body chassis unit, possibly two boxes of used and reconditioned suspension parts and interior seats and trim in other boxes." You would like to know "if it is acceptable to have all window glass and doors fitted to the body unit before shipping to best assure its arrival in one piece; at this point "the interior, suspension, dash, wiring and steering and wheels will not be installed."

Under the fact situation you outline, it is immaterial under our regulations whether or not you install the window glass and doors before shipping, or after importation into the United States. If you prefer to install these components before shipping, that is acceptable to us. Those components, such as windshield glazing, that are covered by an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with such standard upon importation, whether or not they are attached to a larger assemblage of motor vehicle equipment. With respect to windshield glazing, the manufacturer's marking of "ASl" and "DOT" will provide the necessary assurance to a Customs inspector that the glazing conforms.

Although you mention no other covered equipment except lighting, if you are importing as part of the kit brake hoses, brake fluid, tires, seat belt assemblies, or other glazing for use in the vehicle, these must also be marked as conforming with DOT requirements.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref. Import d:4/9/90

ID: 23947.ztv

Mr. Raymond Campanile
President/GM
Motorrad of North America
771 Fentress Blvd., Unit 22
Daytona Beach, FL 32114





Dear Mr. Campanile:

Thank you for your letter of January 21, 2002, responding to ours of January 10, asking for clarification of the relationship between Motorrad of Germany, Motorrad of North America, and CPI of Taiwan, as it affects the Moskito 125 for which you have filed a petition for temporary exemption.

As we now understand it, Motorrad of Germany has contracted with CPI to manufacture the Moskito, and the German company has tested the design for compliance with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Motorrad of Germany's certification of compliance with the FMVSS would be affixed by CPI and the vehicles shipped directly to Motorrad of North America.

Under 49 CFR 555.9 Temporary exemption labels, the certification label applied to an exempted vehicle "shall meet all applicable requirements of part 567 of this chapter" (Sec. 555.9(c)). Part 567 is the vehicle certification regulation. Section 567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to state the name of the manufacturer of the vehicle, which is the name of the "actual assembler" of the vehicle. The actual assembler of the Moskito 125 is CPI, not Motorrad of Germany. Thus, under our regulations, CPI appears to be the entity that should petition for a temporary exemption of the Moskito 125 and certify its compliance with the FMVSS. Further, as the "manufacturer," CPI would share with the importer for resale, Motorrad of North America, the obligation to notify and remedy noncompliances and safety related defects that might occur in the Moskito 125. However, were the Moskito 125 to be shipped to the United States in complete but unassembled form and, after importation, assembled by Motorrad of North America, your company would be the "actual assembler" which, as the certifying manufacturer, could petition for a temporary exemption as you originally did.

There is another possibility. If CPI is controlled by Motorrad of Germany or Motorrad of North America, and the controlling company assumes responsibility for conformity with the FMVSS, the name of the controlling company may be used as the manufacturer on the certification label (Sec. 567.4(g)(1)(i)). In any event, we cannot proceed further with your petition until we have had your response to this letter.

We appreciate your providing a copy of Motorrad of Germany's designation of agent for service of process, dated May 1, 1997. Our Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, Heidi Coleman, will write you shortly about its acceptability.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:555#567

ID: 2394y

Mr. Frederick H. Dambach
President
Execuline
997 Brook Rd.
Lakewood, NJ 08701

Dear Mr. Dambach:

This is in response to your letter requesting that I reconsider my conclusion in a July 26, 1989, letter to you interpreting emergency exit requirements contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I regret the delay in responding. As is explained below, after reconsideration, I must still conclude that exits located in the roof of a bus do not satisfy the requirement contained in S5.2 of Standard 217, that 40% of the required emergency exit space on a transit bus must be located on each side of the bus.

Your August letter argues that roof exits must be counted in determining compliance with S5.2 because the standard does not specifically state that a side is that part of a bus that is perpendicular to the floor. Instead, relying upon provisions of the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) regulations at 49 CFR Part 393, you assert that the side of a bus is any part to the left or right of the roof centerline. While this may be true under the FHWA regulations, those regulations are being used in a completely different context than Standard No. 217, and concern lighting and marker requirements and specifications for towing for motor carriers. Standard 217, on the other hand, specifies requirements for the operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits in buses to ensure readily accessible emergency egress from these vehicles. Because of the different purpose and context of Standard 217 and the FHWA regulations, the definition of the word "side" is not necessarily the same for those regulations. In fact, as I explained in detail in my previous letter to you, the structure and purpose of Standard 217 show that the word "side" has a different meaning in Standard 217 than it does when used by the FHWA in Part 393.

Moreover, and contrary to the assertion in your letter, Standard 217 is not a subpart of Part 393. Standard 217 is found in 49 CFR Part 571. The Standard is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), administered by NHTSA. Under Federal law, these standards are applicable to manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles. On the other hand, Part 393, administered by the FHWA, is a part of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which are applicable to motor carriers. Although NHTSA and FHWA coordinate with each other to avoid conflicts in our respective regulatory programs, the FHWA does not have authority over motor vehicle manufacturers. Likewise, NHTSA does not have authority over motor carriers.

This agency has statutory authority to regulate the manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Additionally, our statute prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. However, this agency has no authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. Hence, NHTSA cannot require the vehicles used in your company's fleet to comply with Standard 217 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, the individual States are free to regulate the operation and use of vehicles within their borders, provided that those regulations do not contravene any Federal laws or regulations. In this case, the State of New Jersey has chosen to adopt the provisions of Standard 217 and make it applicable to vehicles operated within New Jersey. This choice by the State of New Jersey does not contravene any of this agency's statutes or regulations. Thus, while I appreciate that New Jersey's decision to apply Standard 217 to vehicles operated in the State may have caused you difficulties, the wisdom and fairness of that decision is a matter to be decided by the State of New Jersey, not this agency.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA d:4/9/90

ID: 2395y

Mr. R.W. Schreyer
Senior Sales Engineer
Transportation Manufacturing Corp.
Box 5670 (R.I.A.C.)
Roswell, NM 88202-5070

Dear Mr. Schreyer:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Harry Thompson of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210). You posed two questions, which I will answer in the order presented.

First, you noted that the State of Nevada will be procuring some prison buses, equipped with lap-only safety belts at the passenger seating positions. You correctly noted that no safety standard requires safety belts to be installed for passenger seating positions on buses, but asked if this agency could "provide direction on what course of action [TMC] should take." You asked particularly whether you should design the anchorages for the lap-only safety belts to conform with the requirements of Standard No. 210.

NHTSA answered this question in a March 22, 1989 letter to Mr. Keith McDowell, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. As we said in that letter, NHTSA must decline to issue any "guidelines" beyond or in addition to the requirements set forth in the safety standards. Therefore, since Standard No. 210 expressly exempts passenger seats in buses from the standard's anchorage requirements, Federal law leaves the question of how any such anchorages should be designed entirely up to the judgment of the bus manufacturer. Please note, however, that the State of Nevada is free to specify certain design and performance criteria with which these anchorages must comply in its contract for these buses.

Second, you asked for a clarification of the testing conducted to determine compliance with Standard No. 210. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 sets forth the strength test with which anchorages must comply. Section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210 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." You asked whether all seats in the coach must be tested simultaneously or whether a single seat would be tested, and then the next seat tested, and so forth.

Please note that the only anchorages subject to a simultaneous testing requirement are "floor-mounted" anchorages for "adjacent designated seating positions." Assuming that there is an aisle or some other separation between the seat assemblies in your buses, the only "adjacent" designated seating positions would be those common to one occupant seat. Therefore, no more than one occupant seat's anchorages would be tested simultaneously under Standard No. 210. Even those anchorages common to one occupant seat would be tested simultaneously only if the anchorages were floor-mounted.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:210 d:4/9/90