ID: 2839o

Karl-Heinz Faber
Vice President
Product Compliance and Service
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Faber:

Thank you for your letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. In particular, you asked for an interpretation of the provisions of S4.3 of the standard. I regret the delay in answering your questions.

S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides, in part, that "Anchorages for automatic and for dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR Part 571.208) are exempt from the location requirements of this section." (Emphasis added.) You first asked the agency to confirm that anchorages to be used with automatic and dynamically tested safety belts that meet the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 are exempt from all of the anchorage location requirements of S4.3. You are correct that S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that such anchorages are exempt from all the location requirements.

The amendment to exempt anchorages of dynamically tested seat belt assemblies from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210 became effective on May 5, 1986, well in advance of the September 1, 1989 effective date for dynamic testing of manual belts. This effective date indicates that the agency did not intend to limit the exemption from the anchorage location requirements to manual safety belts that were required to be dynamically tested. Additionally, the exemption applies to dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that "meet" the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208, rather than to vehicles "subject to" the frontal crash protection requirements of that Standard. This language indicates that NHTSA intended to allow manufacturers to take advantage of the exemption from the anchorage location requirements for dynamically tested safety belts before the dynamic testing requirements were applicable to such belts. Accordingly, if a vehicle is equipped with a manual safety belt at either or both front outboard seating positions, and the anchorage or anchorages for those belts do not comply with the anchorage location requirements set forth in S4.3 of Standard No. 210, the manufacturer must certify that the belts attached at any such anchorage points comply with S5.1 of Standard No. 208.

In your second question, you asked the following:

We also understand that such dynamic testing may be combined with other compliance testing, and the vehicle or vehicles used may be equipped 'as delivered' for sale to a consumer. Accordingly, the vehicle structure with built-in energy management features, seats with designed-in anti-submarining construction, energy absorbing instrument panel, collapsible steering column, driver and/or passenger airbag(s), anti-lacerative windshield glass, emergency tensioning retractors, etc. may be installed and functional, where applicable, during the compliance crash test.

During its compliance testing, NHTSA combines a test of the occupant crash protection capabilities of automatic or manual safety belts with testing done to determine compliance with other standards. The agency tests vehicles to the frontal barrier crash requirements of Standard Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301 in a single barrier impact. In conducting these compliance tests, NHTSA tests vehicles in their "as delivered" form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has devices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices for the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equipment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning. If our compliance testing shows that a vehicle tested with a manual safety belt at one or both front outboard seating positions complies with the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, then the anchorages for the belt or belts would not be subject to the anchorage location requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 210.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:208#210 d:3/l4/88

ID: 2839yy

The Honorable John D. Dingell
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Your letter of July 10, 1990 about the applicability of NHTSA's safety standards to replacement parts was misplaced. This is indeed unfortunate, embarrassing, and I can assure you extraordinary. You asked me to review an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter from our Office of Chief Counsel to Mr. Rowghani, which indicated that Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, applies only to new vehicles, and not to doors sold as replacement parts.

In view of your concern about replacement parts, we have reviewed that interpretation, and our authority regarding replacement parts. Many of our safety standards apply only to complete vehicles, while others apply only to the individual components (whether original or replacement equipment). Some apply both to vehicles and to the components involved. Each of our standards includes an "Application" section, which clearly defines the scope of coverage, based on the nature of the safety issue and the vehicle/equipment items involved.

NHTSA's standards which apply to equipment (both original and replacement equipment) generally cover those types of items which can be used in many different vehicle lines, which are frequently replaced or sold separately, and which can be independently tested. These include such items as brake hoses (Standard 106), lamps and reflectors (Standard 108), tires (Standards 109, 117 and 119), windows and windshields (Standard 205), safety belt assemblies (Standard 209), child safety seats (Standard 213), and motorcycle safety helmets (Standard 218). Other safety systems require testing in a full-vehicle context, and our safety standards are applied to the vehicle rather than the component. Examples include brake performance (Standards 105 and 121), occupant crash protection (Standard 208), head restraints (Standard 202) and roof-crush resistance (Standard 216), as well as side-door strength.

As noted in the April 9 letter, Standard 214 applies only to whole cars, not to replacement parts, as stated in the application section (see S2 of Standard 214, copy enclosed). While most manufacturers have chosen to meet the Standard by adding reinforcement beams, we are aware of at least one vehicle (a gray-market imported Mercedes-Benz) which passed the standard's compliance test without such a beam. Further, while intuitively it seems that doors without a reinforcement beam are not as safe as ones with a beam, efforts to document a safety problem have been unsuccessful.

The current compliance procedures specify testing a door as part of a new vehicle (see S4 of Standard 214), since it does not appear feasible to specify an appropriate procedure for testing an individual new door (whether original or replacement) by itself. The reason for this is that a door's performance in resisting intrusion is dependent not only on the structure of the door itself, but also other factors such as the vehicle frame into which the door fits, and the hinges and latches which hold the door in place within the frame. In addition, vehicle seats may help resist intrusion and protect occupants. The current standard reflects these factors.

While the current standard does not apply to replacement doors, NHTSA has full authority to pursue any alleged safety problems with doors or any other vehicle components under the "defects" provision of the Safety Act. If evidence demonstrated that certain replacement doors presented an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, the agency could order the manufacturer of such doors to repair or replace such doors. At the present time, however, we are not aware of a safety problem with replacement doors that would warrant the commencement of a defects investigation.

I appreciate your interest in the safety of vehicle parts and hope this information is helpful. For further discussion of the legal issues regarding the applicability of standards, your staff should feel free to contact our Chief Counsel, Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, at 366-9511.

Sincerely,

Jerry Ralph Curry

Enclosure /ref:214 d:2/l5/9l

ID: 2840o

Mr. C. I. Nielsen III
Vice President
General Sales Manager
Wesbar Corporation
P. O. Box 577
West Bend, WI 53095

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1988, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.l.l.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which applies to turn signal lamps. In pertinent part this section requires turn signal lamps for vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more to "have an effective projected luminous area not less than 12 square inches." Your design has a lens area of 12 square inches incorporating an integral Class A reflex reflector, and you have asked whether you may include the "illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens" in your calculation.

We assume from your letter that the light shines through the reflector when the turn signal is activated, and that the reflector is not opaque. In this instance, the reflector area may be included as part of "the effective projected luminous area" within the meaning of S4.l.l.7.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/l6/88

ID: 2840yy

Mr. Samuel Yk Lau
Kenwo Industries Ltd.
Unit 20, 10/F, Block A,
Hi-Tech Ind. Center,
5 Pak Tin Par Street, Tsuen Wan
Hong Kong

Dear Mr. Lau:

This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1991, asking the agency for an opinion with respect to an "additional brake lamp" that you manufacture and intend to export to the United States. You ask "if there are any regulations, standards, or approval for this kind of product", and, further, "does this product need to have any certificate or approval before it can be sold or installed?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, has required the additional stop lamp on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, l985. The Standard specifies performance and minimum lens area requirements for the lamp, and these requirements must be met by any lamp that is used as original equipment on passenger cars, and by any lamp that is intended to replace a lamp orignally installed on a car manufactured on and after September 1, l985. If the lamp is intended as replacement equipment, its manufacturer must provide certification to the distributor or dealer of the lamp that the lamp meets Standard No. l08. For lighting equipment this certification may be in the form of a DOT symbol on the product, or a written statement on the packaging that the lamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or such other written certification as the lamp manufacturer may choose (e.g., an invoice). In addition, the lamp manufacturer must file an Identification Statement with the agency, and a foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States upon which the agency may serve legal process should that be required. However, there is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain approval from the agency before exporting its certified product to the United States and selling it here.

However, Standard No. l08 does not apply to an additional stop lamp that is intended for use in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, and there is no requirement that it be certified as meeting Standard No. l08. Under this circumstance, we advise that the packaging for any such lamp should clearly state that it is not intended to replace an original equipment center lamp so that legal questions regarding its conformity with Federal requirements do not arise. Even though the lamp is not subject to Standard No. l08, its foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

An additional stop lamp for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, is also subject to the laws of the individual States in which the lamp is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of MOtor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, USA.

We enclose a copy of Standard No. l08 and of the SAE standard on supplementary stop lamps that is incorporated by reference. We are also enclosing copies of the Manufacturer Identification and Designation of Agent regulations, and of other materials that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance provides in response to inquiries of this nature. Questions on these materials should be addressed to that Office.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:556#551#l08 d:2/22/9l

ID: 2841o

The Honorable Terry L. Bruce
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Bruce:

I have been asked to respond to the letter which you wrote, on behalf of Mid America Design, Inc., to Mr. Daniel C. Holland, the District Director for the United States Customs Service in Seattle, Washington. That company attempted to import a shipment of "spinner hubcaps" from Taiwan. These hubcaps were seized by the U.S. Customs Service for failing to conform with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hubcaps (49 CFR 571.211). In your letter to Mr. Holland, you asked to be furnished with an official statement that "spinner hubcaps" do not comply with Standard No. 211, and asked why these imported "spinner hubcaps" are treated differently from those currently available in this country. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

I have enclosed copies of my May 13, 1987 letter to the Honorable William E. Dannemeyer and my November 13, 1987 letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. In these letters, I reaffirmed our interpretations from the past 20 years stating that spinner hub caps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)] makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any hub caps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added). Therefore, the U.S. Customs Service was enforcing the law properly when it seized the spinner hubcaps Mid America sought to import.

You also stated in your letter that spinner hubcaps are currently available in the United States, and enclosed some advertisements offering spinner hubcaps for sale. I would like to thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We have referred this information to our enforcement staff for appropriate action.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:211 d:3/16/88

ID: 2841yy

Mr. S.V. Kaaria
70 E. Heather #3
Midvale, UT 84047

Dear Mr. Kaaria:

Our Denver Regional Office has forwarded your letter of January 3, l99l, to this Office for reply. You are "the designer of the taillights placed near the rear window of passenger cars." In attempting to negotiate a settlement with vehicle manufacturers, you have been informed that because "elevated brake lights" are required by our agency, the government "should negotiate with me for l% of replacement cost of these taillights." You have asked that we clarify our position in this matter.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 requires that every passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, l985, be equipped with a high-mounted stop lamp, mounted on the rear vertical centerline of the vehicle. The only requirement relating to design is that the lens have an effective projected luminous lens area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, but the standard does not specify the shape of the lens. Within these parameters, manufacturers have located their lamps both inside and outside of the car, from the roof to the deck, and have equipped them with circular and rectangular lenses of varying sizes. Our standards are generally expressed in performance terms so that manufacturers have the freedom to design their vehicles in the manner most suited to them to meet the performance requirements, and so that a specification that appears to favor a proprietary device (e.g., mandating a specific design solution to a standard's requirements) is avoided.

Because of the latitude in design that Standard No. l08 affords, we do not regard the lamp as having any single inventor or designer. While it is possible that you have designed a lamp with some proprietary elements, your search for recovery is properly directed towards lamp and vehicle manufacturers. You have been ill-advised to seek recovery from the government, for you have no legal basis to do so.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:2/ll/9l

ID: 2842o

Morris East, Assistant Director
Bureau of School Transportation
State of Louisiana
P.O. Box 94064
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9064

Dear Mr. East:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to school buses. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you state that one of your local school systems intends to remove a bus body from "an existing chassis, and place that body onto a new chassis." You state further that the system's school bus maintenance shop would perform the work. You ask a number of questions which I shall answer in order. My answers assume that, at a minimum, the engine, drive axles, and transmission of the new chassis are new components.

Question 1: Is it permissible under the (Vehicle Safety Act as amended) for a local school board to remove the body from one school bus chassis and place that body on another school bus chassis?

The answer to this question is "yes." The Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from altering, modifying, or manufacturing a vehicle; nor has NHTSA established such a prohibition in its regulations.

Question 2: Would this action (in Question 1) violate bus body integrity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) (specifically FMVSS 208, 220, 221)?

The act of removing a school bus body from one chassis and placing that body on a different chassis does not violate any Federal safety standard. However, when a person uses a new body and mixed new and used chassis components in refurbishing a vehicle, the question arises whether the vehicle is new. In past interpretations, NHTSA has applied 571.7(e) to school buses that combine a new body and either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used chassis components from different vehicles. If a school bus is considered "new" under the criteria set out in this provision, then the person who refurbishes the vehicle must certify that the school bus meets all applicable safety standards in effect on the date the chassis was manufactured - including Standards 208, 220, and 221 if they apply - and affix a certification label under 49 CFR Part 567.

On the other hand, if an old bus body is placed on a chassis that is completely new, a different provision applies. In this case, the chassis is an incomplete vehicle. "Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR 568.3 as:

an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of a frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

When a new bus chassis meets this description, a subsequent person who adds a body- even an old body- is a final-stage manufacturer, and must certify the completed vehicle as conforming to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as of a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle (the new chassis). (49 CFR 567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.)

Neither 571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to recertify a school bus when the body and all other vehicle components are not new.

Question 3: If permitted, can the work described in (Question) 1. above be performed in the school board's maintenance shop? Can it be contracted to an automobile dealer capable of performing such work? Can the work be contracted to other motor vehicle repair shops such as body dealers or private motor vehicle repair shops?

The answer to each of these statements is "yes." Remember, though, that if the refurbished buses are considered new under the criteria discussed in Question 2, they must meet all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and a certification label must be affixed to each refurbished vehicle to that effect.

If the refurbished buses are not "new" under these same criteria, then there is no obligation to recertify the vehicles. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business works on your buses, then there is restriction on what these commercial businesses can do - even if the vehicle is used. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits these persons from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any device or element of design incorporated into the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Note that this restriction does not apply when the vehicle owner (e.g., a local school system) makes a modification, or if a repair facility that does not hold itself out to the public as being in the business of motor vehicle repair (e.g.. a maintenance shop that works only for the school board) makes the modification. Question 4: If the changeover is allowed, must the new unit (new chassis with used body) be re-certified to meet FMVSS requirements? If it must be re-certified, who may provide the inspection and re-certification?

As I stated in my answers to Questions 2 and 3, under certain circumstances, the vehicle must be recertified by the refurbisher. The refurbisher is responsible for the vehicle's compliance status just as any vehicle manufacturer, and must be able to show that he exercised due care in certifying the vehicle. The agency examines issues of due care on a case-by-case basis evaluating all relevant facts. This evaluation would include assessing technological limitations, availability of test equipment, the market position of the manufacturer, and most importantly, the degree of manufacturer diligence.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#567#568#571 d:3/16/88

ID: 2843o

Mr. M. Iwase
Technical Administration Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken
JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1988, with respect to photometric values for stop lamps and taillamps on motorcycles, and the spacing required between them and turn signal lamps.

You have asked two questions with respect to two types of motorcycle rear lighting devices, which you call "Structure l" and "Structure 2". Although a single lamp located on the vertical centerline may be used to fulfill rear lighting requirements on motorcycles, each of your Structures features two bulbs, symmetrically placed on each side of the vertical centerline. Each Structure is a single lighting device, featuring a turn signal bulb at each extremity. In Structure l a chamber containing a tail/stop lamp bulb is directly inboard of the chamber containing a turn signal bulb. The two chambers on each side are separated by a central portion of the device which is decorative in nature. Unlike Structure l, Structure 2 is a three-chamber device, with separate chambers at each end for the turn signal bulbs, and a central chamber incorporating two tail/stop lamp bulbs.

With respect to each Structure and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 you have asked:

"(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section '1' which are specified in Figure 11b of S4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamp on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section '2' which are specified in figure 1b of S4.1.1.11."

Figure lb specifies the minimum and maximum allowable candlepower values for lighting devices with one, two, and three lighted sections. However, the number of lighted sections is calculated with respect to each lamp, not the total number of lighted sections used for a specific purpose, or lit at a given time. We consider Structure 1 to comprise two separate tail/stop lamps, each consisting of a single chamber. Similarly, Structure 2 incorporates a single tail/stop lamp consisting of a single chamber in which two bulbs are used. Therefore, for both Structures and for both (a) and (b) the lamp should be designed so that the single chambers meet the photometric values for single compartment lamps.

Your second question for each Structure is whether the specified minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signals and tail/stop lamps is required. The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to comply with this requirement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:108 3/16/88

ID: 2844o

Oral Interpretation of Standard No. l08:
Optical Combination

Z. Taylor Vinson Senior Staff Attorney

Interpretations Files

Recently a lamp manufacturer phoned to ask whether a replacement lighting device it had developed for installation on trucks and trailers in use would be allowable under Standard No. l08.

The lamp as described is an amber-lensed wrap-around lamp incorporating a clearance lamp to the front and a marker lamp to the side, with one bulb for each function. I replied that the prohibition in S4.4. applicable to clearance lamps forbade their combination only with identification lamps and stop lamps, and that if his combination lamp met photometric and mounting requirements applicable to each function, it appeared to be permissible under Standard No. l08.

# ref:108 d:4/6/88

ID: 2845o

Mr. Takashi Ohdaira
Isuzu Motors America, Inc.
21415 Civic Center Drive
Southfield, MI 48076-3969

Dear Mr. Ohdaira:

This responds to your December 16, 1987 letter asking several questions about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to "swivel type front seats" installed in new compact passenger vans. I regret the delay in responding. Swivel seats are not prohibited by Standard No. 207. However, under Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, a front outboard swivel seat must have lap and upper torso restraints that fit the occupant of the seat in any position in which the seat would be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, including the rearward facing position.

Your letter explains that Isuzu is interested in manufacturing some of its vehicles with swivel seats for the driver and front outboard passenger. The seats can be rotated in any direction and self-locked into either a forward-facing or a rearward-facing direction. A release control is provided allowing the seat to be rotated into a new position. You state that Isuzu tentatively plans to install lap and upper torso belt assemblies with emergency-locking retractors that "meet the requirements applicable to a forward-facing front seat" since the capability of the seats to face rearward is "just a secondary function."

You first ask for confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 207 does not prohibit the installation of front outboard swivel seats. Your understanding is correct. Our standards do not require seats on vehicles other than large school buses to be forward-facing and thus do not thereby expressly prohibit installation of swivel seats.

Your letter raises the issue of whether the swivel seat installed at the front outboard passenger seating position must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 and thus provide lap and upper torso restraints only for the forward-facing position (as opposed to what you term the "secondary" or rearward position). Paragraph S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208 states, in pertinent part:

. . . [T]he lap belt of any seat belt assembly furnished in accordance with S4.1.1 and S4.1.2 shall adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor that conforms to 571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th-percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 95th-percentile adult male and the upper torso restraint shall adjust by means of an emergency-locking retractor or a manual adjusting device that conforms to 571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th-percentile adult female to those of a 95th-percentile adult male, with the seat in any position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position. . . . (Emphasis added.)

The quoted reference to seat "position" in the excerpt from S7.1.1 is not limited to the positions along the vehicle longitudinal centerline to which a seat can be adjusted while forward-facing. We interpret the term as referring also to seat orientation, including the rearward-facing position or any other direction the seat is capable of facing, provided that the seat can be placed in those positions while the vehicle is in motion. Thus, we believe that a front outboard swivel seat must have lap and upper torso restraints that fit the occupant of the seat while the seat is in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. Starting September 1, 1991, light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with manual safety belts for the driver and front seat passenger seating position will have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 in a dynamic crash test. A front outboard swivel seat would have to comply with those requirements with the seat in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion.

We have limited our interpretation to positions in which a seat may be occupied while the vehicle is in motion for the following reasons. The purpose of requiring a seat belt assembly to meet the adjustment requirements of Standard No. 208 with the seat in any position is to ensure that adequate occupant crash protection would be provided to the occupant of the seat regardless of the position he or she chooses for the seat. However, the safety goal of ensuring adequate crash protection for vehicle occupants relates only to positions in which a seat may be occupied when a vehicle is involved in a crash, i.e., the positions in which a seat may be occupied while a vehicle is in motion. If the swivel seat you plan to install for the front outboard seating position can only be used in its forward-facing position while the vehicle is in motion, then it need meet Standard No. 208's requirements only at forward facing positions and need not conform with the standard's requirements at positions facing in other directions.

In your letter, you suggested two possible ways to limit the rearward-facing capabilities of a front outboard swivel seat. First, you suggested that the vehicle could be manufactured with an interlock system that would prevent the vehicle from starting unless the front passenger seat faces forward. In our opinion, this system would not sufficiently ensure that the swivel seat would be used only in its forward-facing position while the vehicle is in motion. An occupant of the seat could swivel his or her seat once the vehicle has started and could thus face rearward without the benefit of lap and upper torso restraints.

Your second suggestion was to manufacture the vehicle such that the front passenger seat could swivel rearward only when the driver seat rotated rearward or when the vehicle was "in park." This would prevent the passenger's seat from facing in any direction other than forward while the vehicle was in motion since the driver must face forward to operate the vehicle. We believe that this alternative could satisfactorily ensure that the front outboard passenger seating position could not face in any direction other than forward while the vehicle is in motion.

In addition to the requirements discussed above, we note also that Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, would require the front outboard swivel seat to have seat belt anchorages for a Type II seat belt assembly. The anchorages would have to meet the standard's strength requirements (S4.2), and those for their location (S4.3) provided that the safety belt will not be dynamically tested pursuant to Standard No. 208's requirements. Anchorages for a front outboard swivel seat that can be occupied in its rearward facing position while the vehicle is in motion could be tested to the requirements of S4.2 by the agency with the seat in either the forward or rearward facing position.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:207#208#210 d:4/8/88