ID: aiam0488

Telephone call from TTMA re GVWR This is a memorandum of a telephone conversation that I had with Mr Paul Wilson of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers' Association on November 19, 1971.; Mr. Wilson asked how the GAWR and GVWR requirements of the ne Certification regulations would apply to semitrailers with sliding rear axle bogies (sic). He said that he saw a danger that if the GVWR of a semitrailer were based on the load that could be carried with the rear axle in the rearmost position (the maximum load condition if the rear axle is the limiting factor), there was a possibility that the user would overload the axle by loading to that capacity with the axle in a more forward position. Conversely, if the GVWR were stated at a lower figure based on the axle in the forwardmost position, the actual capacity of the trailer would be understated.; I told Mr. Wilson that, with or without the new regulations, th situation obviously required the furnishing of specific instructions to the truck users, beyond any figures for GVWR and GAWR. The NHTSA, I said, did not restrict the furnishing of this information, either by label or in printed manual form, except that extraneous material should not be placed in the midst of the required information on the label. I also said that the GVWR could be lower than the sum of the axle ratings and the capacity at the kingpin.; Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3107

Dear Mr. Murakami: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning the proper 'designated seating capacity' for three hypothetical seat designs. You ask whether each of the designs would be permitted to have only two 'designated seating positions.'; The amended definition of 'designated seating position' provides, i part, that any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating.; Your three hypothetical designs are derived from a basic seat desig having 52 inches of hip room (Figure 1 in your letter). This basic design would be required to have three designated seating positions since it has greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless the center position cannot be used because of some obstruction or other impediment. You ask whether the agency would consider the three hypothetical designs illustrated in your letter to adequately establish impediments to use of the center position.; Your 'Figure 2' illustrates an unpadded depression at the cente position of the bench seat. Since this center depression is unpadded, 3.1 inches deep and 6.7 inches wide, it is the agency's opinion that the center position lacks an essential attribute of a seating position and would not likely be used for seating (even though there might be some unorthodox use of the position from time to time). If a seat of this design is equipped with seat belt assemblies, location of assembly hardware in the center depression would further clarify that the area is not a seating position. It must be emphasized, however, that designs of this type would be required to have three designated seating positions if the depth and width of the depression is so minimal that a person could easily straddle the depression and use the center position. Also, stiffness of seat belt assembly hardware located in the center depression becomes a more determinative factor the more narrow the width of such a depression.; The seat design illustrated in 'Figure 3' of your letter includes 'partition pipe' at the center of the seat cushion. Whether such a design would preclude the use of the center position would depend greatly on the physical dimensions and characteristics of the 'pipe' that is used and whether it is removable. If the 'pipe' were made of soft, pliable padding similar to the other portions of the seat, for example, the 'pipe' might not be sufficient to discourage use of the center position. Since your letter provides no information on the nature of the 'partition pipe' that is illustrated, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design.; In 'Figure 4,' there is a padded 'swelling' in the center sea position. Although the Figure specifies a height of 3.9 inches at the front of the 'swelling,' it appears that the 'swelling' slants down toward the seat back so that it is only about one-half inch high where it joins the seat back. The illustration also does not describe whether the 'swelling' is made of soft padding or of some rigid material. Without this information, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design. I would point out, however, that if the 'swelling' is made of soft, flexible padding, it would not likely discourage use of the center position. In fact, if as it appears the 'swelling' slants down to the seat back to create a 'saddle effect,' young children might be encouraged to use this center position.; To summarize, it is the agency's opinion that 'Figure 2' in your lette illustrates a seat design that could qualify as having two designated seating positions. Regarding Figures 3 and 4, your letter did not include sufficient information for the agency to provide an opinion. On the basis of the information that was provided, however, I would say that these two designs are very dubious and do not indicate an adequate attempt on the part of the manufacturer to clarify that the center position is not to be used. It does not behoove a manufacturer to attempt to come narrowly within the meaning of the amended definition of 'designated seating position.' It would be much wiser to make sure that there is no question that the center position is not to be used. In the design illustrated in your 'Figure 4,' for example, you could easily design the 'swelling' to be 4 or more inches tall from front to rear and made of a rigid material, and there would be no question concerning your compliance.; Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents th agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3108

Dear Mr. Murakami: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning the proper 'designated seating capacity' for three hypothetical seat designs. You ask whether each of the designs would be permitted to have only two 'designated seating positions.'; The amended definition of 'designated seating position' provides, i part, that any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating.; Your three hypothetical designs are derived from a basic seat desig having 52 inches of hip room (Figure 1 in your letter). This basic design would be required to have three designated seating positions since it has greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless the center position cannot be used because of some obstruction or other impediment. You ask whether the agency would consider the three hypothetical designs illustrated in your letter to adequately establish impediments to use of the center position.; Your 'Figure 2' illustrates an unpadded depression at the cente position of the bench seat. Since this center depression is unpadded, 3.1 inches deep and 6.7 inches wide, it is the agency's opinion that the center position lacks an essential attribute of a seating position and would not likely be used for seating (even though there might be some unorthodox use of the position from time to time). If a seat of this design is equipped with seat belt assemblies, location of assembly hardware in the center depression would further clarify that the area is not a seating position. It must be emphasized, however, that designs of this type would be required to have three designated seating positions if the depth and width of the depression is so minimal that a person could easily straddle the depression and use the center position. Also, stiffness of seat belt assembly hardware located in the center depression becomes a more determinative factor the more narrow the width of such a depression.; The seat design illustrated in 'Figure 3' of your letter includes 'partition pipe' at the center of the seat cushion. Whether such a design would preclude the use of the center position would depend greatly on the physical dimensions and characteristics of the 'pipe' that is used and whether it is removable. If the 'pipe' were made of soft, pliable padding similar to the other portions of the seat, for example, the 'pipe' might not be sufficient to discourage use of the center position. Since your letter provides no information on the nature of the 'partition pipe' that is illustrated, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design.; In 'Figure 4,' there is a padded 'swelling' in the center sea position. Although the Figure specifies a height of 3.9 inches at the front of the 'swelling,' it appears that the 'swelling' slants down toward the seat back so that it is only about one-half inch high where it joins the seat back. The illustration also does not describe whether the 'swelling' is made of soft padding or of some rigid material. Without this information, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design. I would point out, however, that if the 'swelling' is made of soft, flexible padding, it would not likely discourage use of the center position. In fact, if as it appears the 'swelling' slants down to the seat back to create a 'saddle effect,' young children might be encouraged to use this center position.; To summarize, it is the agency's opinion that 'Figure 2' in your lette illustrates a seat design that could qualify as having two designated seating positions. Regarding Figures 3 and 4, your letter did not include sufficient information for the agency to provide an opinion. On the basis of the information that was provided, however, I would say that these two designs are very dubious and do not indicate an adequate attempt on the part of the manufacturer to clarify that the center position is not to be used. It does not behoove a manufacturer to attempt to come narrowly within the meaning of the amended definition of 'designated seating position.' It would be much wiser to make sure that there is no question that the center position is not to be used. In the design illustrated in your 'Figure 4,' for example, you could easily design the 'swelling' to be 4 or more inches tall from front to rear and made of a rigid material, and there would be no question concerning your compliance.; Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents th agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2828

Dear Mr. Vieg: This responds to your May 10, 1979, (sic) letter asking questions abou the applicability of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, to buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.; First you ask whether seat spacing must be maintained at a maximum o 21 inches in these vehicles. The answer to your question is no. As you correctly point out in your letter, section S5.2 of the standard that regulates maximum seat spacing does not apply to buses with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less. Maximum seat spacing is limited in larger buses as a means of compartmentalizing students to prevent injury in crashes. Compartmentalization, and therefore maximum seat spacing, is not necessary in smaller buses since they are required to be equipped with seat belts which afford significant protection in accidents.; Your second question asks whether it is permissible to have one larg seat belt in a school bus seat that might wrap around two students or whether each designated seating position must have an individual belt system. The agency concludes that the use of one large belt to cover more than one designated seating position violates section S5 of the regulation. That section states that each seating position must comply with seat belt requirements. To meet this requirement, each seating position in a small bus must be equipped with its own belt system.; If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Joan Claybrook

ID: 1984-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John J. Futini (Fotini)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John J. Futini 1012 Terra Verde Drive Napa, California 94559

Your letter of October 21, 1984, to the Bureau of Motor Safety, Federal Highway Administration, has been forwarded to us for reply.

You have developed a lighting device for mounting on the rear of trucks, "which operates at low speeds, activates and deactivates automatically through the use of electronics, sends a brilliant and instantaneously flashing amber light to the rear for some distance; the result being to ward off or warn fast approaching vehicles... of the presence of a slow moving truck ahead." You have asked for our views regarding the legality of such a device.

We will consider your device as both original and aftermarket equipment. This agency issues and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards apply to the manufacture of vehicles. Standard No. 108 is the standard applicable to vehicle lighting. Paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108 specifies that certain lamps shall flash when activated (e.g., turn signals), that others may be flashed for signaling purposes (e.g., side marker lamps), but, however, that all other lamps shall be steady-burning. We interpret this prohibition to include devices such as yours which are not mandated as original equipment but which might be installed on a vehicle prior to its sale to a customer. Therefore, a vehicle equipped with your device as original equipment or added before sale would appear to fail to comply with paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108.

After a truck has been sold, however, the Federal standards no longer determine the legality of the device. If the owner of a vehicle wishes to install a lamp of this nature, he should be aware that its legality is determined by laws of the State in which the vehicle is registered, and where it will be operated. If the vehicle is subject to the operational requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, the regulations of that agency would apply as well.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

21 October 1984

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter mailed to Mr. Kenneth L. Pierson, Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. I invite your comments on the subject matter. Any assistance rendered would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, John J. Futini

10/29/84

Mr. Taylor Vincent,

Per our conversation this date, I am transferring the attached letter for you to handle.

Thank you.

August Burgett 21 October 1984 Mr. Kenneth L. Pierson Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Pierson: This letter is written to you with the intention principally of getting an official view from federal government, or at the least federal input into a project which I have been working on for some time that has to do with highway trucks and safety. Your name was obtained from the latest US government manual on departments and agencies as was the name of the person which appears below to whom a copy of this letter is being sent. I selected the names after close study and assume that I am addressing the contents here to the right people. If not, would you kindly send it on to the proper agency. Instead of going into an elaborate dissertation regarding description of my project, which possibly at some later date I can send a detailed version, I would like to briefly state that I have developed a safety lighting device for highway trucks that attaches to the rearmost point of these vehicles which operates at low speeds, activates and deactivates automatically through the use of electronics, sends a brilliant and instantaneously flashing amber light to the rear for some distance; the result being to ward off or warn fast approaching vehicles, mainly automobiles, of the presence of a slow moving truck ahead. The idea for this device was born from many years of my driving these same heavy vehicles and witnessing sadly the tragic aftermath of a shattering rear-end collision involving a slow truck and a fast automobile, making me realize the urgent need for something to prevent these usually fatal accidents from happening. It has taken many years to develop this truck safety light, going through the frustrations of lack of technical know-how, the near absence of sophisticated electronics in the beginning, trying to find qualified people to assist, etc. I finally have reached a somewhat successful stage in which I now have a working test model that is presently going through a patentability search to determine its uniqueness. While this search is going on, what I need to know is the federal government's view concerning the legality of the application of this truck safety light and if there are existing federal regulations governing the types of lighting that highway trucks may have at their rearmost point, and whether or not it is possible for my light to become a reality on the road. In conclusion, I wish to emphasize that I am only interested in applying my warning light to highway rigs strictly and as an accessory item. I believe it to be a direly needed truck safety feature whose time has come. Sincerely yours, John J. Fotini copy: Mr. Ralph Hitchcock, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards.

ID: nht94-1.89

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wolf Ebel -- President, Schroth Restraint Systems Biomatik USA Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/94 to Mary Versailles from Stephen M. Monseu (OCC-9550)

TEXT:

This responds to a September 22, 1993, letter from Mr. Stephen M. Monseu of your company, asking whether the products manufactured by Schroth Restraint Systems (the Rally 3, Rally 4, and Autocontrol harness belt systems) meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The September 22 letter stated that these are after-market belt systems, intended for installation in addition to the factory-installed occupant protection system. This al so responds to a January 5, 1994, letter asking whether the Schroth restraint systems would meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 if they were installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial produc ts. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, while I cannot advise concerning whether or not the Schroth r estraint systems comply with applicable safety standards, I can explain how the standards would apply to these products.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the Schroth restraint systems.

The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CF R S571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and locatio n requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the Schroth restraint system occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and, not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible f or certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the Schroth restraint system installed in the vehicle.

Standard No. 208 requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross-veh icle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. The belt installation requirements can be divided into three categories:

. Automatic crash protection systems which protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a v ehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

. Type 2 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints."

. Type 1 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint."

The Schroth restraint-systems would not be considered automatic safety belts, and therefore could not be used in place of an air bag to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for seating positions requiring automatic crash protection.

The Schroth restraint systems would be considered Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Therefore, if the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 (discussed later in this letter), and if the anchorages for the Schroth restraint system s meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, they could be installed to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 2 seat belt assembly. This would include installation of the Schroth restraint system with an air bag. Please note, however, that the dynamic testing requirement must be met both with and without the Schroth restraint system. In addition, because Standard No. 208, like all safety standards, is a minimum standard, the Schroth restraint systems co uld be installed to

satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Please note however, that the Schroth restraint system does not appear to comply with certain sections of Standard No. 208, specifically:

. S7.1.1.3, which requires emergency locking retractors on the lap belt portion of safety belts in the front outboard seating positions.

. S7.1.2, which requires the intersection of the upper torso belt with the lap belt to be at least six inches from the vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant.

. S7.2(c), which requires release at a single point.

Unlike the other three standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle."

Because the Schroth restraint systems would be considered "seat belt assemblies," the systems must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209 before they can be sold.

Installation Prior to First Sale

Because your September 22 letter indicated that the Schroth restraint systems might be installed in addition to existing belt systems, I would like to also discuss such an installation prior to the vehicle's first sale. If a Schroth restraint system was added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the Schroth restraint system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, suc h installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That sect ion provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Schroth restraint system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition is subject to a potential civil pen alty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encou rages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht72-3.39

DATE: 03/02/72

FROM: ELWOOD DRIVER FOR ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Lindburg Cadillac

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 16, 1972, to Secretary John Volpe, concerning the length of seat belts in a 1972 Cadillac automobile.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203, Occupant Crash Protection, copy enclosed, specifies requirements for occupant restaint systems. Effective January 1, 1972, car manufacturers are required to provide Type 2 belt assemblies (lap-shoulder belts) at the front outboard seating positions and lap belts at other positions. The Type 2 belt assemblies may have either integral or detachable shoulder belts, but the distance between the intersection of the lap-shoulder belt and the vertical counterline of a 50th-percentile adult male occupant must be at least six inches when the seat is in its rearmost position. The purpose of this requirement is to reduce the possibility of the shoulder belt pulling the lap belt up onto the occupant's abdomen where it could cause serious injury in a crash.

We have examined several 1972 model cars and have found that some manufacturers have chosen belt designs that provide distances of ten inches or more between the lap-shoulder belt intersection and the centerline of the occupant. The (Illegible Word) not prohibit distances greater than six inches, but it is obvious that the greater this distance, the closer the inboard end of the belt is to the seat and the more difficult it is to buckle the belt. I am happy to inform you that we have already initiated rule making action to amend Standard No. 208 that would prohibit such excessive distances.

Under the requirements of the National Motor Vehicle and Traffic Safety Act, copy enclosed, it is a violation of the law to sell a vehicle that does not conform to an applicable standard. Although the Act does not prevent the purchaser of a vehicle from altering or removing a safety device, after he has completed the purchase, we strongly advise him against such action. A dealer who perform such services after he has sold the vehicle does not violate the law, but he does his customer a disservice.

In regard to the belts in the Cadillac you sold to Mr. and Mrs. T. Albert McCulley, we do not have the authority to grant or deny you permission to lengthen the inboard end of the belt. We can only suggest that perhaps you could lengthen the belt only to the extent that is necessary to provide a distance of not less than six inches between the interraction of the lap-shoulder belt and the centerline of a 50th-percencile adult (Illegible Word) occupant measured in accordance with paragraph s7.1.2 of Standard No. 206.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, LINDBURG CADILLAC

February 16, 1972

Honorable John Volpe Secretary of Transportation U. S. Dept. of Transportation

Dear Mr. Volpe:

Recently we delivered a new 1972 Cadillac S/N6D47R2Q-194774 to Mr. and Mrs, T. Albert McCulley, 434 Sherwood Forest, Belleville, Illinois 02225 fitted with the new seat belt warning system.

The center buckle section is so short that Mr. and Mrs. McCulley experienced difficulty in fastening the outside section to the center section. We have inquired from Cadillac the possibilities of lengthening the center buckle sections approximately eight inches which would still leave the warning system in operation and would greatly facilitate the fastening, put Cadillac informs us that the installation is strictly according to federal regulations and cannot be changed.

Would you grant us permission to add eight inches to the center buckle section for this particular vehicle?

VERY TRULY YOURS,

George A. Maty Vice President and Sales Manager.

CC: MR. AND MRS. T. ALBERT MCCULLEY; SEN. STUART SYMINGTON; SEN.THOMAS EAGLETON; REP. MELVIN PRICE

ID: aiam4783

"Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter about the built-i child seat Volvo has designed for the center rear seating position. The built-in seat uses the vehicle's lap-shoulder safety belt to restrain the child. I regret the delay in responding. You indicated in a telephone conversation that Volvo is considering designing the seat solely for children who weigh more than 50 pounds. Such a seat is not subject to the requirements of Standard 213 because the seat is not a 'child restraint' as that term is defined in the standard. Paragraph S4 of Standard 213 defines a child restraint system as 'any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds.' The agency would determine whether your built-in seat is designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds by considering available indications of the manufacturer's design intent, e.g., the physical suitability of the seat for use by children who weigh less than 50 pounds, and the manner in which the seat is labeled and marketed. The agency would look to see whether the seat is clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by the system. We would also consider any indications in Volvo's marketing efforts and point of sale materials regarding the size and age of child that the seat is designed to restrain. Finally, we would consider any size and age information included in the vehicle's owner manual. You also indicated Volvo may consider designating the seat as suitable for children weighing more than 40 pounds. If the seat were so designated, it would no longer be a seat designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds, and therefore be a child restraint system subject to Standard 213. You ask whether, if Standard 213 applies to your seat, the standard permits such a seat. You state that the seat would meet the labeling and performance requirements of the standard. You believe that Standard 213 permits the seat because the final rule that amended 213 to set requirements directly applicable to built-in seats (53 FR 1783, January 22, 1988) said that paragraph S5.4.3.3 of the standard allows child restraint systems other than a 5-point harness system. You are correct that the standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Paragraph S5.4.3.3 provides, in part, that 'each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child' must comply with the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 (i.e., provide upper and lower torso restraint, and a crotch restraint (for seats for children weighing over 20 pounds), of a specific form). The definition of a 'child restraint system' specifically excludes the vehicle's lap/shoulder belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language of S5.4.3.3, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems applies only to seats that have belts, and not to a seat such as yours that uses the vehicle's belt system. Please note that Standard 213 sets limits on knee excursion for built-in seats (S5.1.3.1(b)). Thus, although your seat is not required to have a crotch strap, the seat must be designed to prevent a child from sliding excessively forward and down, legs first ('submarining'). The agency would like to emphasize its concern that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the lap belt should be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis of a child, the area of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. We cannot determine from your drawing whether the vehicle lap belt would be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. The instructions for the proper use of the built-in seat that are required by S5.6.2 of the standard should inform users how to properly adjust the belt system, so to avoid submarining and imposing impact loads to the child's abdomen. The agency is also concerned that the sitting height of some children who may occupy the seat might not be high enough for the shoulder belt to be properly positioned when attached. Instead, the belt might pass in front of the child's neck or face. For those cases, if no other option is available, NHTSA believes that the shoulder belt should be placed behind the child's back. We recommend that you include information in the printed instructions about such adjusting of the shoulder belt for small children. As a reminder, NHTSA will use these adjustment instructions per S6.1.2.3.1 to position the three year old dummy in the seat if the agency tests the seat in its compliance program. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2512

Dear Mr. Titsworth: This responds to your December 7, 1976 and January 8, 1977, question whether 53 described intersections of bus body components qualify as 'body panel joints' subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*. This also responds to your question whether the seating reference point in Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, can be located using nominal seat cushion deflection.; The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of th standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (made of homogeneous material) in a bus that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the 53 intersections of bus body components you describe, it appears that the areas corresponding to the following numbered paragraphs of your letter are bus body joints and therefore must meet the 60-percent joint strength requirements: 1 through 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 51. Additionally the joint described in your January 8, 1977, submission must comply with the standard.; The illustration accompanying paragraph 16 shows a second joint betwee a door post and exterior trim panel with the notation that this joint is 'Not Required To Meet Std.' The agency concludes that this joint also must meet the requirements of the standard, because it is a connection of a body component with a body panel that encloses occupant space.; The lower skirt section described in paragraph 35 is not a body pane that encloses occupant space, because it is located entirely below the level of the floor line and, therefore, is excluded from the standard's requirements.; In the control console area, the interior side panel described i paragraph 38 and the shoulder cap (wire cover) described in paragraph 43 are considered maintenance access panels, whose joining with the bus body is excluded from the requirements only if a wire is installed behind them.; The turn signal housings described in paragraphs 40 and 41 are no considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and are therefore not considered body components for purposes of the requirements.; The front and rear headers described in paragraphs 47 and 48 ar considered primarily structural and have only an incidental role in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, are not considered 'body panels' for purposes of the requirements.; The rubrail described in paragraph 49 is not considered to have function in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, is not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which it is fastened, it should be modified as necessary to prevent it from affecting testing of the underlying joint.; Because the plywood described in paragraph 50 is attached to a floo panel and is only added to some buses for insulation purposes, it is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.; The NHTSA concludes that parts A, E, and F of paragraph 52 describ joints between maintenance access panels and the bus body. The heater ducts in parts B, C, and D are the type of ventilation space that is not subject to requirements for joint strength.; In response to your question concerning the effect of seat cushio deflection on the location of the seating reference point, the NHTSA has determined that the definition of seating reference point contemplates some deflection of seat cushions to simulate compression of padding material under the weight of a human torso and thigh. As noted in the preamble of the second proposal for a school bus seating standard (39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974), 'It can be seen that the manufacturer's freedom to locate the point is sharply restricted by the definition which specifies that it actually simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh, following SAE placement procedures.' However, since the seating reference point is an approximation of the pivot center, the NHTSA permits the manufacturer to locate the point based upon nominal seat cushion deflection.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1878

Dear Mr. Knaur: This responds to your March 17, 1975, request for an explanation of th seat belt assembly installation requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*, as they apply to motor homes with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds, and those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.; The standard requires that motor homes with a GVWR of more than 10,00 pounds be equipped with 'passive' crash protection of a certain level (S4.3.1) or a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at each designated seating position (S4.3.2).; Motor homes with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must be equipped wit 'passive' crash protection of a certain level (S4.2.1.1) or a Type 2 seat belt assembly at each outboard designated seating position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at each other designated seating position(S4.2.1.2).; At the front outboard designated seating position, you state that th incomplete vehicle manufacturer provides Type 1 seat belts. Unless the documentation, provided under Part 568 of our regulations (49 CFR Part 568), states that modification of the Type 1 seat belts is required to meet Standard No. 208, it appears that the vehicle windshield header is not within the head impact area and that Type 1 seat belts meet the requirement.; You point out that some manufacturers may not provide as man designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations in the vehicle. We evaluated the proportion of this problem recently because of the possibility that occupants were not being provided with enough Type 1 seat belts. An informal but comprehensive survey at a recent trade show indicated that the problem is extremely limited. If you have information that this practice is becoming more common, please provide this office with more specific identification of manufacturer and model line.; We do appreciate your efforts to provide your purchasers with a hig level of crash protection.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel