ID: nht71-2.34

DATE: 04/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Busby, Rivkin, Sherman and Levy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 20, 1971, in which you enclosed a request for clarification, on behalf of Rolls-Royce, Ltd., of the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Essentially, the question was whether a "European type combined lap and diagonal strap seat belt assembly with retractor" could be furnished instead of the "Type 1 seatbelt assembly" specified in the second protection option on passenger cars manufactured from August 15, 1973, to August 14, 1975.

Standard No. 208 does not permit this substitution. The key feature of the second option in the August 1973- August 1975 period is that the manufacturer must design his vehicles so that the front seat occupants are protected from injury when restrained with lap belts only, and provide lap belts for all occupants that may, at least, be separately usable as such. A detachable upper torso belt may be provided at the manufacturer's option. The basis for this requirement is the well-documented finding that a much larger percentage of the American public will fasten lap belts than will use upper torso belts, whether the latter are of the detachable or the combination type.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht71-5.11

DATE: 12/02/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Lotus Cars Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1971, in which you asked whether Standard No. 208 would require seat belt retractors to be installed after January 1, 1972, for the rear occasional seats of the Lotus Plan Plus Two. Our answer is that retractors will be required if the rear seats are "designated seating positions" as defined in our regulations at 49 CFR 571.3(b). The definition provides, among other things, that to be a designated seating position a seat must accomodate a 5th percentile adult female. To define an occupant of this size, the regulations incorporate a U.S. Public Health Service publication that includes the following specifications: weight, 104 pounds; standing height, 59 inches; sitting height, 30.9 inches; knee height, 17.9 inches; buttock-knee length, 20.4 inches. If the Plan Plus Two cannot accomodate a person of this size in the rear seat, it need not have a seat belt retractor for that seat. If such a person can be accomodated, then retractors will be required unless the seat is otherwise exempt by the definition as an auxiliary seating accomodation such as [a temporary or folding jump seat." We do not have the information necessary to judge whether the seat is exempt as an auxiliary seating accomodation.

Please advise us if further explanation is necessary.

ID: nht72-3.48

DATE: 10/18/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Charles E. West

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of September 18, 1972, to Senator Warren G. Magnuson, Chairman, Committee on (Illegible Words) your automatic seat belt system has been referred to this office for reply.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (copy enclosed) requires complete passive restraint systems in cars manufactured after August 15, 1973. This standard, as well as most of our standards, is written in performance terms and does not require the use of any specific device. Manufacturers are free to employ any system that will meet the requirements of the standard without any voluntary section on the part of the occupant, such as fastening a seat belt.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is not generally engaged in hardware development, but rather, directs its research efforts toward the development of technical data to form the basis for motor vehicle safety performance standards. Perhaps you might care to contact vehicle manufacturers to see if they would be interested in your automatic belt system.

I am placing a copy of your letter in our Public Docket No. 69-7, which contains information relative to occupant restraint systems. We appreciated receiving the description of your system and your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht73-5.27

DATE: 10/18/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson for L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Schultz, Evans and Burns

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1973 to Secretary Brinegar, concerning outside rear view mirrors.

The existing standard (No. 111) on Rearview Mirrors, is found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations @ 571.111. Paragraph S3.2 establishes requirements for outside mirrors. This standard applies to all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured since January 1, 1968, and establishes requirements for original equipment mirrors. It does not apply to mirrors manufactured for the aftermarket.

SINCERELY,

SCHULTZ, EWAN AND BURNS

September 28, 1973

Claude S. Brinegar, Secretary of Transportation

Dear Sir:

I am anticipating a possible suit against one of the American automotive manufacturers. The basis of this suit would be the dangerous design and manufacture of an outside side view mirror.

Pursuant to the Federal Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Law Chapter 38 USCA @ 1392(a), your office is to establish motor vehicle safety standards. I would greatly appreciate all standards promulgated by your office pertaining to side view mirrors which were in effect for the 1973 model year.

Yours truly,

William C. Burns

ID: 11474AWKM

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Manager, Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter asking for interpretation of the September 28, 1995 amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (60 FR 50124). These amendments extended the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to the back doors of passenger cars and MPVs so equipped. Your questions referred to the applicability of paragraphs S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 of the standard, as amended, to various back door configurations.

As amended, S4.4.1 provides that each back door system shall be equipped with at least one primary latch and striker assembly. A "primary latch" is defined in the amended standard as one that is equipped with both the fully latched position and a secondary latched position.

As amended, S4.4.2 provides:

Door Locks. Each back door system equipped with interior door handles or that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with operating means in both the interior and exterior of the vehicle. When the locking mechanism is engaged, both the inside and outside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

Your seven questions are stated below, followed by our responses.

QUESTION 1. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a trunk lid in a sedan type passenger car which has rear seats that can be folded down to enable the user to carry a larger cargo?

ANSWER: S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 do not apply. The rule in question did not extend the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to trunk lids of passenger cars. Section S3, Definitions, of the amended standard defined "back door" to exclude Athe trunk lid of a passenger car whose trunk is separated from the passenger compartment by a partition." NHTSA will clarify this issue in response to petitions for reconsideration of the rule by redefining Atrunk lid.@

QUESTION 2. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a back door (tail gate) of a stationwagon in which there is no seating position in the rear cargo area behind the second row and no partition between the rearmost forward-facing seats and the back door?

ANSWER: S4.4.1 applies, S4.4.2 does not. Section S3, Definitions, of the rule defines "back door" as Aa door or door system on the back end of a vehicle through which passengers can enter or depart the vehicle, or cargo can be loaded or unloaded@ (with exceptions not relevant here, such as trunk lids).

The back door (tail gate) described in this question clearly falls within the above definition of "back door." Therefore, its primary latch assembly is required by S4.4.1 to have both a fully latched and a secondary latched position. This is so because even though there may not be seating positions in the area contiguous to the back door, back seat passengers can nevertheless be ejected through the back door (tail gate) in a crash.

On the other hand, assuming that this back door does not have an interior door handle and that it does not lead directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions, a door locking mechanism would not be required under S4.4.2.

QUESTION 3. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a back door (tail gate) of a stationwagon in which there is a rearward-facing seating position behind the second row of forward- facing seats?

ANSWER: Yes. S4.4.1 applies to this back door for the reasons discussed in question 2 above. S4.4.2 also applies because the door opens directly into a compartment containing passenger seating accommodations.

QUESTION 4. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a hatchback passenger car where the back door is hinged above the rear glass and in which the rear seats are fixed and in which there is a removable partition behind the rear seats and over the cargo area?

ANSWER: The definition of Aback door@ excludes Aa door or window composed entirely of glazing material whose latches and/or hinges are attached directly onto the glazing material.@ However, we understand you to be asking about a door that is hinged on the metal part of the door and not directly on the glazing. That door would not qualify for the glazing exception. S4.4.1 would apply, therefore, for the reasons discussed in question 2 above. S4.4.2 would not apply because this door does not open directly into a passenger seating compartment and presumably is not otherwise equipped with an interior door handle.

QUESTION 4A. What is the answer for such a car where the rear seats can be folded down to expand the cargo area?

ANSWER: The answer would be the same for this door, whether or not the rear seatback folded down.

QUESTION 5. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a van equipped with only a driver and front passenger seat?

ANSWER: S4.4.1 would apply to the back door, unless the door is excepted from the definition of Aback door.@ S4.4.2 would not apply since this is a cargo vehicle in which the back door does not open directly into a passenger seating compartment.

QUESTION 5A. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a van equipped with multiple rows of seats such that an aisle-way is provided directly to the back door area allowing for possible passenger exit?

ANSWER: Again, S4.4.1 would apply to the back door unless the door is excepted from the definition of Aback door.@

The mere presence of an aisle leading from the front or side door of a vehicle to the back door area would not necessarily mean that the door would have to meet S4.4.2. The sole test in the standard is whether the back door opens directly into a compartment that contains passenger seating accommodations. Nevertheless, if an aisle provides access to the back door and the door is equipped with an interior handle to allow occupant egress, the door would have to comply with S4.4.2 whether or not it opened directly into a passenger seating compartment.

QUESTION 6. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a van with multiple rows of seats such that the last row of seats is fixed and covers the entire width of the interior of the vehicle so that the only way to exit from the back door would be to climb over the fixed seat?

ANSWER: S4.4.1 applies, S4.4.2 does not. The reasons are the same as those for question 2.

QUESTION 7. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a van with multiple rows of seats in which the last row nearest the back door is removable at the option of the user, thus leaving free access between the forward seating area and the back door?

ANSWER: Assuming the rearmost seating row faces forward, this answer is similar to that of question No. 5. Presumably, the user would normally remove the rearmost seat not to install more passenger seats but to expand the size of the cargo compartment. Thus, assuming the door was not excepted from the back door definition, it would have to comply with S4.4.1. Further, since the door does not open directly into a passenger seating compartment, with or without the rearmost seating row, it would not have to comply with S4.4.2, unless otherwise equipped with an interior door handle.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Ref:206 d:3/21/96

ID: nht80-3.22

DATE: 07/23/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo USA Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking questions concerning the strength and location requirements under Safety Standard No. 210 for anchorages used with automatic seat belt systems.

Your first question asked about the force loads required for testing anchorages for a Type 1 lap belt (manual belt) and for testing a single diagonal automatic belt, when the two belts are used in conjunction with one another as part of a total system. The agency has stated in the past that the anchorages for a single diagonal automatic belt should be tested with a 3,000-pound force for purposes of Safety Standard No. 210, in accordance with the test procedures of paragraph S5.2. This is the same force that is required for testing the upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt system. This force requirement is applicable whether the single diagonal automatic belt is used alone or whether it is used in conjunction with an manual lap belt. The anchorages for the manual lap belt, however, would be required to withstand test forces of 5,000 pounds under paragraph S4.2.1 of Standard No. 210, not 3,000 pounds as indicated in your letter. The anchorages for the manual lap belt and for the automatic belt must separately meet their respective force requirements and would not have to be tested simultaneously since they are separate systems.

In your second question, you asked about the number of anchorages that are required for various combinations of systems. Paragraph S4.1.1 of Safety Standard No. 210 requires anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly to be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars. This is true regardless of whether the seating position is equipped with an air bag and a lap belt, with a single diagonal automatic belt or with any other system. Safety Standard No. 210 is independent of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Thus, in your hypothetical designated "A", case "A-2" is correct. Three anchorage points are required by Safety Standard No. 210, even though Safety Standard No. 208 only requires that a lap belt be installed. The presence of the Type 2 anchorages in vehicles will allow vehicle owners to install easily Type 2 belts at their own initiative if they desire to do so for whatever reason. For example, if a single diagonal automatic belt system has been damaged, an owner may wish to replace it with a Type 2 manual belt system.

Under paragraph S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages for automatic belts are exempted from the location requirements of the standard. This exception was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs to determine the optimum anchorage locations in terms of both effectiveness and comfort (43 FR 53440, Nov. 16, 1978). If, however, the anchorage points for an automatic belt do not fall within the locations specified in the standard for Type 2 belts, the manufacturer would have to provide additional anchorage points that could be used by a properly located Type 2 manual belt.

In response to your hypothetical question deignated "B", case "B-b-1" would not comply with the requirement for Type 2 anchorages since there are only two points. Case "B-b-2" would comply if all three anchorages points comply with the location requirements of the standard for Type 2 belts. Case "B-b-3" would require five anchorage points if points "1" and "2" could not qualify as properly located points of a Type 2 anchorage system.

In your question designated "B-C", cases "B-C-1", "B-C-2" and "B-C-3" would all comply with Safety Standard No. 210 if all points indicated in each example are within the locations specified for Type 2 anchorages. In case "B-C-4", the system would comply if point "1" is within the location specified in the standard for Type 2 belts, and point "4" would not be necessary if both points "1" and "2" are within the proper locations. All the anchorage points indicated in "B-C-5" are necessary if points "1" and "2" are not in the proper locations.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff at 202-426-2992.

SINCERELY,

MAZDA

Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office Detroit Branch

May 5, 1980

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir,

Subject: Question concerning the seat belt anchorages.

We have some questions concerning the strength and location of the seat belt anchorages which are used for the automatic seat belt system.

QUESTION 1 - The strength of the anchorages for automatic seat belt.

According to FMVSS No. 210, there is not a definition or a specification for the two point automatic seat belt which is called a diagonal belt. Our interpretation is shown below. We would like to know whether it is correct.

-Each belt is subjected to the load of 3000 lbs. simultaneously.

(Graphics Omitted)

Reason:

According to the current FMVSS No. 210, the 3 point seat belt system (Type 2) is required to withstand the load of 3000 lbs. for each lap and upper torso portion. In the case of the two point automatic seat belt, there are two ways to wear it. One manner is to wear it with the active lap belt, and the other is to wear it without the active lap belt.

When the seat belts are worn in the first manner, the load condition during an accident for each belt is nearly equal to the condition of the 3 point belt system.

Even if the seat belt is worn in the latter manner, the load for the diagonal seat belt is nearly the same compared to the upper torso portion of the 3 point belt system, because of the existance of the knee bolstor which is expected to support the load of the lower occupants body, and which has the same function of the active lap belt.

Therefore, we think the load condition of the anchorages for the two point seat belt system may be the same as the condition for the 3 point belt system.

QUESTION 2 - The location and the number of the anchorages for the automatic seat belt system.

According to the provision of FMVSS No. 210 Sec. 4.1.1, each forward facing outboard seating position in passenger cars is required to install the anchorages for type 2 seat belt assembly.

According to the provision of FMVSS No. 208, if we adopt the automatic belt system as the second option (Sec. 1.2.2) for the passive restraint system, we have to install the anchorages for the type 1 or type 2 seat belt. Although in this case, the location of the anchorage is exempt but the total number of the anchorages is not clear from the standpoint of No. 208, 209.

(A) When we adopt the air cushion restraint system how many anchorages are required?

Case A-1

2 lap anchorages for lap belt required by FMVSS 208 4.1.2.1.b2)

Case A-2

3 anchorages for type 2 required by FMVSS 210 4.3.

(Graphics omitted)

(B) When we adopt the 2 point automatic seat belt system, which is correct?

B-b 2 point automatic seat belt without active lap belt.

(Graphics omitted)

* Remarks

* - The anchorages marked this way, may or may not comply with the requirement of FMVSS 210 4.3.

* - The anchorages marked this way, must comply with the requirement of FMVSS 210 4.3.

(3)(4)(5) - are additional anchorages for the active type 2 seat belt required by FMVSS 210.

B-C 2 point automatic seat belt with active lap belt.

Case

(Graphics omitted)

* Remarks

The meanings of marks * and * are the same as B-b.

(4)(5) are additional anchorages for the active type 2 seat belt required by FMVSS 210.

M. Ogata Branch Manager Toyo Kogyo USA Office

cc: B. SMITH -- OFC. OF VEHICLE STANDARDS CRASHWORTHINESS DIV.

ID: nht88-3.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/88

FROM: LANCE E. TUNICK -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL MASERATI AUTOMOBILES INC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 09/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Maserati Automobiles Incorporated (MAI) requests an interpretation of the requirements in S.4.1.3. of FMVSS 208 concerning the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with passive restraints. More specifically, because the s tandard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. and because, under Section 108 (b) (5) of the Safety Act, the standard does not apply to vehicles intended solely for export, MAI assumes that if, during a "phase-in" period, vehicles that we re previously imported into the U.S. by MAI are exported to Canada (where we have one dealer) would be deducted from the U.S. production total to arrive at the base figure to which the phase-in percentage would apply.

We would greatly appreciate your confirming this interpretation as soon as possible, so that we can report under 49 CFR Part 585.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht92-9.32

DATE: February 2, 1992

FROM: A. Volmerange

TO: Mr. Harper -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/19/92 from Paul J. Rice to Anne Volmerange (A39; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

My toyota dealer needs a written authorization from your office to install an old fashion three points belt on my 92 Tercel.

The two points belt which is on the car just don't fit me. I am five feet tall,and the shoulder belt ties either on my neck or on my breast. As these two body parts are too sensitive to take the pull of a restraining belt, I have to drive without it, in spite of the California Law.

Also, the holder of the shoulder belt can't be reached from my driving position since it is way behind the seat. This create a safety hazard since I would not be able to untie it in case of an emergency. One of my previous car burst in flames, and one of my hand opened the door, while the other untied the three points safety belt which I was wearing that day.

As a Registered Nurse, I am aware of the chest, neck and head injuries, and can't figure out why you have stopped using the three points belt. It was fitting all sizes drivers and all seat positions. Car dealers should be allowed to install them as many new cars owners hate the new system and don't use theirs belts.

ID: nht75-2.15

DATE: 04/21/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Dominion Auto Accessories Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 20, 1975, inquiring as to the permissibility of selling your "Panamirror" in the United States as aftermarket equipment.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirror, provides minimum performance requirements for rearview mirrors on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. According to the standard, the inside rearview mirror must furnish the driver with a specified field of view to the rear of substantially unit magnification. Any vehicle manufactured for sale, sold, or introduced into interstate commerce must be equipped with an inside rearview mirror that meets the designated level of performance. It appears that the "Panamirror" would not satisfy the requirements of the provision, because it is convex in structure and therefore would not provide a view of substantially unit magnification.

If the mirror were installed on a vehicle as aftermarket equipment (after the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale) in such a way as to render inoperative the inside rearview mirror, section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) as amended (Pub. L. 93-492) would apply where the installation was accomplished by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. The section prohibits the named parties from knowingly rendering inoperative a system installed in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

ID: nht95-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 28, 1995

FROM: Chong D. Lee -- President, TMR International, Inc.

TO: Mr. Philip Recht -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO CHONG D. LEE (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

The purpose of this letter is to request the opinion and advice of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on the legality and potential legal risks of an automotive product intended to increase occupant safety.

Our company, TMR International, Inc., plans to import, for North American sale, an aftermarket driver's side airbag. The intent is to offer this product as a safety improvement for customers whose cars and trucks were manufactured without an airbag as o riginal equipment. The airbag comes in assembly with a steering wheel and is intended for installation as a unit in replacement of the vehicle's OEM steering wheel.

We are requesting the opinion of NHTSA as to; a) Whether such a product as described is legal for U.S. sale; b) Legal procedures, testing or submissions required to certify the product for U.S. sale; c) Applicable Federal law (e.g., FMVSS 208) d) Actions or registrations required to reduce legal risks; e) Any other information of which we should be aware.

Thank you for prompt attention. We look forward to bringing to market, as soon as possible, this important safety improvement product.