Interpretation ID: aiam2298
Chief
Engineering Department
NSK Warner Kabushiki Kaisha
12
Kirihara-cho
Fujisawa
Japan;
Dear Mr. Mita: This responds to NSK Warner's April 12, 1976, question whether th release and buckle requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, permit the use of a latch mechanism that consists of a fixed hook over which belt webbing (presumably from the upper torso and pelvic portions of a continuous loop system) is slipped by the occupant, causing a rotating catch to close the open end of the hook and secure the webbing. Release is accomplished by depression of a push button that rotates the catch away from the open end of the hook, followed by occupant action to slip the belt webbing off the hook.; Standard No. 208 specifies that a seat belt assembly installed in motor vehicle shall have a latch mechanism [t]hat releases at a single point by a push-button action' (S7.2(c)). Release' in this context means that the portions of the belt assembly on either side of the latch mechanism disengage from one another. From your description of the hook mechanism, it would not disengage the two portions of belt assembly by a push-button action, because an additional action by the occupant is required. It therefore appears that such a mechanism would not conform to S7.2(c) of Standard No. 208.; Standard No. 209 specifies that A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembl shall be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant to permit his easy and rapid removal from the assembly' (S4.1(e)). Buckle' is defined in S4. as a quick release connector which fastens a person in a seat belt assembly.' Section S4.3 further specifies that The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall release when a force of not more than 30 pounds or 14 kilograms is applied' (S4.3(d)(1)). Release' in this standard is also interpreted to mean that the portions of the belt assembly on either side of the latch mechanism disengage from one another. For this reason, it appears that the described device would not comply with the listed requirements of Standard No. 209.; I trust that this answer is responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel