ID: nht88-3.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/13/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PAUL UTANS -- VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SUBARU OF AMERICA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/11/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM PAUL UTANS, OCC - 2405; LETTER DATED 12/01/86 TO FRANCOIS LOUIS FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 08/18/78 TO D. BLACK FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN, STANDARD 210, RE NOA 30

TEXT: Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). Specifically, you stated that Subaru would like to offer lap/shoulder belts at the rear outboard seating positions on mid-1989 mode l year station wagons sold in the United States. Standard No. 210 requires these station wagons to be equipped with an anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso portion of a lap/shoulder belt assembly at each forward-facing outboard seating position (S4.1.1) and requires such anchorages to be located within a specified range (S4.3.2). You stated that the station wagons would have a complying anchorage located in the specified area.

However, the upper torso portion of the lap/shoulder belt assemblies would not be attached to the required anchorages in the vehicles. Instead, Subaru would provide another anchorage outside of the range specified in Standard No. 210, and the upper tors o portion of the rear seat lap/shoulder belt assemblies would be attached to these additional anchorages. You stated your belief that, since Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208) does not require manufacturers to install lap/shou lder belts in rear seating positions of passenger cars, Subaru's voluntary installation of rear seat lap/shoulder belts and additional anchorages for those belts is not subject to any of this agency's regulations, provided that the voluntarily installed items do not impair the functioning of any devices or elements of design required to be installed in the vehicles. Your belief is correct.

The anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210 apply to all anchorages required by the safety standards, except for those anchorages explicitly exempted by S4.3 of Standard No. 210 (anchorages for automatic and dynamically tested manual belt ass emblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208). The question then becomes whether the voluntarily provided rear seat shoulder belts must be attached in these vehicles to the anchorage that is required by the

safety standards. As discussed below, we conclude that a voluntarily provided lap/shoulder belt may be attached to an anchorage located outside the area specified by Standard No. 210.

S3 of Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires shoulder belt anchorages to be installed for each forward-facing rear outboa rd seating position in passenger cars. This requirement has been interpreted as meaning that an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure had to be provided for such seating positions, and that required anchora ge point had to comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 210.

According to your letter, your station wagons would be equipped with an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, and that point would comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in S tandard No. 210. Thus, Subaru could satisfy all the requirements of the safety standards by installing lap belts only at the rear outboard seating positions in these cars. Subaru's decision to install lap/shoulder belts at these seating positions and a n additional anchorage point for the shoulder belts is a voluntary choice, not a response to any regulatory requirement.

NHTSA has long said that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with Federal safety standards, provided that the additional systems or components do not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards. In a December 1, 1986 letter to Mr. Francois Louis (copy enclosed), I said that manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorage for voluntarily-installed lap belts outside of the area specified in Standa rd No. 210 for lap belts required to be installed by Standard No. 208, provided that the voluntarily installed lap belts do not destroy the ability of the required belt systems to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. The same reasoning would apply in this situation. That is, manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorage for the upper end of voluntarily installed shoulder belts outside of the area specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210, provided that the voluntarily installed an chorages and shoulder belts do not destroy the ability of the required anchorages and lap belts to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. There is no reason to believe that shoulder belts and the additional anchorages would in any way imp air the ability of required equipment to comply with the requirements of the safety standards.

You are already aware of the fact that NHTSA has initiated a rulemaking to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts; 52 FR 22818, June 16, 1987. You should note that if the agency adopts a final rule requiring rear seat lap/shoulder belts in passenger cars, this interpretation would no longer apply, because it relies on the voluntary nature of the installation.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: nht78-3.20

DATE: 08/18/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Alfa Romeo, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/13/88 TO PAUL UTANS FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 STANDARD 208, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 08/11/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM PAUL UTANS, OCC - 2405; LETTER DATED 12/01/86 TO FRANCOIS LOUIS FROM ERIKA Z JONES, STANDARD 208

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter concerning Alfa Romeo's proposed designs for Type 2 seat belt assemblies to be used on convertibles. You ask for clarification of the anchorage location requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 210, as they would apply to your proposed designs.

Paragraph S4.1.1 of Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, specifies that anchorages for a Type 2 belt shall be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars other than convertibles. Manufacturers are permitted to install Type 2 belts in convertibles, however, under paragraph S4.1.2 of the standard which specifies that either a Type 1 or Type 2 belt may be installed for designated seating positions not required to have Type 2 belts under the previous section.

Since convertibles are only required to have Type 1 belts, only the pelvic portion of your proposed Type 2 designs must meet the anchorage location requirements of the standard. These location requirements are specified in S4.3.1, and the pelvic portion of your two proposed designs (Figures 2 and 3 in your letter) appear to fall within the 20 degrees - 75 degrees acceptable range. The upper torso portions of the belt designs do not have to comply with the 40 degrees acceptable range specified in S4.3.2, since those portions are in addition to what is required by the standard.

In response to your general question, "seat belt anchorage" is defined in Standard No. 210 as the "provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." For purposes of determining compliance with the anchorage location requirements of the standard, the agency interprets anchorage to include any load-bearing element of the seat belt assembly that is capable of meeting the force requirements of Standard No. 210. For example, in your Figure 1 you state that the lap belt is anchored "at point 'C' within the 40 degrees zone and then passes through a webbing guide anchorage." The 40 degrees zone is not the applicable location requirement for lap belts and if this were the only anchorage, the belt would not comply with the standard. However, since the "webbing guide anchorage" appears to be within the applicable 20 degrees-75 degrees zone, the belt would be in compliance if that anchorage is capable of meeting the force requirements of the standard. The agency considers an assembly to be in compliance if there is one force-complying anchorage within the acceptable ranges specified in the standard, and that anchorage is determinative of the angle the belt crosses the vehicle occupant.

To summarize, both of your proposed Type 2 seat belt assemblies would comply with the location requirements of Standard No. 210 if used in convertibles, since only the pelvic portions of the assemblies would have to meet the requirements of the standard and the anchorages for those portions appear to be within the acceptable ranges. Further, either assembly design can be used in hard-top automobiles if it has one anchorage capable of meeting the force requirements of the standard that is located in the 40 degrees acceptable range for upper torso portions of Type 2 belts.

Please contact Hugh Oates of this office if you have any further questions concerning this subject (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Alfa Romeo, Inc.

May 12, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Office of Chief Council U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: LOCATION OF ANCHORAGE FOR UPPER TORSO RESTRAINT REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Dear Mr. Levin:

Due to recent changes in European law, the upper torso restraint anchor on the Alfa Romeo Spider (roadster) will have to be redesigned. Ideally, an upper torso restraint anchor that complies with both U.S.D.O.T. F.M.V.S.S. and European law in one common design is preferred.

To keep this request brief, we prefer to use graphic references:

DRAWING 1: (Figure 1)

This depicts presently produced U.S. model (115.41) Spider having a "type 1" belt assembly. This lap belt is anchored at point "C" within the 40 degrees zone and then passes through a webbing guide anchorage at outboard points and "B".

Unfortunately this system will not comply with the new European law. Therefore, we consider two alternate substitute designs described below.

DRAWING 2: (Figure 2)

This shows a proposed installation of a "type 2" (3 point) torso/lap harness. Here we see the retractor mounted on the floor (outside the 40 degrees zone) at point 4. The webbing is then fed through a guide anchorage at point 3 (within the 40 degrees zone) up to another webbing guide on the seatback at point 1.

In this proposal, while the retractor is outside the 40 degrees zone, the "anchorage guides" 3 and 1 are well within the acceptable zone. This poses the question as to what is the "anchorage" (i.e., the retractor or the "anchor"?). In mechanical theory the retractor could be outside the 40 degrees zone while the "anchorage" remained within the 40 degrees zone. Our view is that the intent of N.H.T.S.A.'s design limitation is to prevent the torso webbing from attaining a loadline of more than 40 degrees (for well known reasons). This proposal achieves the "intent" of the author of F.M.V.S.S. 210, even though in a "roundabout" manner.

We would like N.H.T.S.A.'s opinion as to whether or not this proposal demonstrates compliance with 210's "40 degrees Fig. 1 zone" by design.

DRAWING 3: (Figure 3)

This proposed design eliminates the point 3 roller of the previous design, for simplicity. Instead, the retractor is mounted "direct" but slightly outside the 40 degrees zone.

Now, at point 1 on the seatback, this guide is well within the acceptable zone. It is in reality the point that determines the position of the webbing in relation to the occupant's torso. (This point is referred to as the "effective point" in the European law. It is the last point at where the webbing changes direction).

Needless to say, the point 1 guide does have sufficient load bearing capability to consider it as an anchorage. It is not merely a "convenience loop" as used on some U.S. vehicles, but an integrally designed part of the seat back.

F.M.V.S.S. 210 S4.1.1

This requirement specifically states that anchorages for Type 2 belt assemblies "shall be installed . . . . . in passenger cars other than convertibles." Does this by exclusion ("shall - other than convertibles") prohibit the installation of Type 2 belt assemblies in convertibles - or does it infer Type 2 as an option?

If the Type 2 is prohibited in convertibles, then we must try and define the word "convertible." What determines "convertibility" and what are we "converting" (the top?). If we are "converting" from a closed to an open vehicle, when and what degree of "open-ness" determines that the vehicle is in fact "open" or a convertible. We feel this is academic and use it only as a means to demonstrate the vagaries of F.M.V.S.S. 210 requirements. We realize that we also are among the minority by virtue of our almost exclusive production of "convertibles".

Our design management would appreciate N.H.T.S.A.'s legal opinion as to the compliance capabilities of our proposals 2 and 3 as soon as is possible as we are delaying tooling pending your decision.

Should the enclosed drawings require clarification or further discussion, please let us know.

D. Black Manager U.S. Engineering Office

cc: ING. FOGLIATA -- DIPRE/LEGO ING. DIMORA -- DIPRE/CARR DIPRE/ESPE ESCA

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Illegible Word) Present location SEAT BELT ANCHORAGES A-B-C SEAT BELT TYPE "1" PRESENT No DISEGNO Legn 115L1 ed 79 fg1

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted) (Illegible Lines)

(Graphics omitted) (Illegible Lines)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam2919

Dear Mr. Friberg: This is in response to your letter of November 1, 1978, asking whethe the Volvo 'Child Cushion' must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Seating Systems*. You state that the 'Child Cushion' is 'designed to be used by children in the approximate age range of 6 to 12 years' for the purpose of raising the child 'so that the seat belt system properly distributes deceleration forces over the child's torso in the event of impact, and to greatly reduce the probability of 'submarining'.'; Section 3 of Standard No. 213 currently defines a 'child seatin system' as 'an item of motor vehicle equipment for seating a child being transported in a motor vehicle.' In adopting that definition, the agency intended to cover all devices designed to seat children in motor vehicles, regardless whether a device provides restraint (38 FR 7562, 1973). Although you state that the Volvo 'Child Cushion' is 'in itself not a restraint system' it would be covered by Standard No. 213 if it is designed to seat a *child*.; As you point out, Standard No. 213 does not currently specify the siz or age range of children to which the standard is applicable, while proposed Standard No. 213-80, *Child Restraint Systems*, does specify a size range (43 FR 21470, 1978). Section 4 of the proposed new standard 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.'; Although current Standard No. 213 does not specify the size and ag range of the children intended to be protected, an upper limit of 50 pounds is indicated by a number of the standard's requirements. Section 5 of Standard No. 213 provides that the torso block to be used in conducting the static tests specified in the standard is the same torso block as used in Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, to test Type 3 belt assemblies. Standard No. 209 defines a Type 3 assembly as 'a combination pelvic and upper torso restraint for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds or 23 kilograms and capable of sitting upright by themselves, that is children in the approximate age range of 8 months to 6 years.' In addition, the static load requirements of Section 4.11 of Standard No. 213 were designed to reflect the loads that would be imposed on a 40-50 pound child in a 30 mph crash (35 FR 5120, 35 FR 14778, 1970). Therefore, Standard No. 213, like proposed Standard No 213-80, is intended to apply only to child restraints for children weighing 50 pounds or under.; If the Volvo 'Child Cushion' is designed only for children larger tha those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, the 'Child Cushion' would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. However, the agency is interested in learning of any test data that Volvo has comparing the protection provided by use of the 'Child Cushion' and a three-point belt with the protection provided by use of only a three-point belt. A representative of the agency's rulemaking office will contact you concerning this request. Likewise, in order to ensure the safe use of the Volvo 'Child Cushion,' it is recommended that the device be clearly and permanently labelled to show that it is to be used with a three-point belt only by a specific size and age range of children.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: LCDDVD.1

Mr. Harold R. Burke, Esq.
Philip Russell, P.C.
71 Lewis Street
P.O. Box 1437
Greenwich, CT06836

Dear Mr. Burke:

This responds to your letter of January 23, 2003, in which you describe an automobile crash in which your client, a rear seat passenger, suffered serious facial trauma resulting from impact with an LCD screen that was part of a DVD television system incorporated into the rear of the headrest of the front passenger seat. You state that this television system was an aftermarket installation. Your letter then asks five questions seeking clarification of 49 U.S.C. 30122 and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, in the context of this factual scenario.

Preliminarily, we note that it is the policy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) not to express any views or advice on the ultimate questions raised in litigation of private incidents or controversies. However, a pending lawsuit will not affect our ability to interpret our statutes and regulations. Accordingly, the following restates each question presented in your letter and provides our response. Please note that we have reordered your questions so as to simplify our response.

1. Is an entity which installs aftermarket electronic components such as DVD television screens in automobiles considered "a motor vehicle repair business" under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30122?

Although NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers, it is possible that the installation of a television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards. 49 U.S.C. 30122 expresses a general prohibition on making safety devices and elements inoperative. Specifically, subsection (b) provides:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter [49 USC 30101 et seq.] unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

The statute defines "motor vehicle repair business" as "a person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." 49 U.S.C. 30122(a). The term is further defined in NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR 595.4 as including "businesses that receive compensation for servicing vehicles without malfunctioning or broken parts or systems by adding or removing features or components to or from those vehicles or otherwise customizing those vehicles." Status as a "motor vehicle repair business" is not dependent upon whether the vehicle or component was previously "broken" or needed to be "repaired," but, rather, it is based upon the commercial relationship between the vehicle owner and the individual or company performing the work on the vehicle or component. Any person who will accept compensation to repair a vehicle is a motor vehicle repair business.

To the extent that a commercial entity installs aftermarket electronic components in motor vehicles, that entity would be a motor vehicle repair business that would be prohibited from knowingly making inoperative features covered by any FMVSS under 49 U.S.C. 30122. This prohibition applies even if the modifications are to be made pursuant to the vehicle owners instructions. However, because we have not examined the vehicle in the present case, we express no opinion as to whether installation of the television system in question has precipitated a violation of section 30122.

2. Is the rear portion of a vehicles front headrest considered a "head impact area" pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.201S5?

The purpose of FMVSS No. 201 is to specify requirements designed to afford interior impact protection to vehicle occupants. Within that standard, paragraph S5.2 specifically deals with requirements for seat backs, providing:

Except as provided in S5.2.1 [provision applicable to school buses, not at issue here], when that area of the seat back that is within the head impact area is impacted in accordance with S5.2.2 by a 6.8 kilogram, 165 mm diameter head form at a relative velocity of 24 kilometers per hour, the deceleration of the head form shall not exceed 80g continuously for more than 3 milliseconds.

Paragraph S5.2.2 goes on to provide a demonstration procedure for seat backs. In conducting this test procedure, S5.2.2(d) provides, "For seats having head restraints installed, each test shall be conducted with the head restraints in place at its lowest adjusted position, at a point on the head restraint centerline." However, the requirements of this paragraph are only triggered once it has been determined that a portion of the seat back is within the "head impact area," as defined in the following section.

Under 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions, NHTSA defines the term "head impact area" as follows:

Head impact area means all nonglazed surfaces of the interior of a vehicle that are statically contactable by a 6.5-inch diameter spherical head form of a measuring device having a pivot point to "top-of-head" dimension infinitely adjustable from 29 to 33 inches in accordance with the following procedure, or its graphic equivalent:

(a)At each designated seating position, place the pivot point of the measuring device

(1)For seats that are adjustable fore and aft, at

(i)The seating reference point; and

(ii)A point 5 inches horizontally forward of the seating reference point and vertically above the seating reference point an amount equal to the rise which results from a 5-inch forward adjustment of the seat or 0.75 inch; and

(2)For seats that are not adjustable fore and aft, at the seating reference point.

(b)With the pivot point to "top-of-head" dimension at each value allowed by the device and the interior dimensions of the vehicle, determine all contact points above the lower windshield glass line and forward of the seating reference point.

(c)With the head form at each contact point, and with the device in a vertical position if no contact points exists [sic] for a particular adjusted length, pivot the measuring device forward and downward through all arcs in vertical planes to 90 each side of the vertical longitudinal plane through the seating reference point, until the head form contacts an interior surface or until it is tangent to a horizontal plane 1 inch above the seating reference point, whichever occurs first.

It is possible that the rear portion of a front headrest could fall within the "head impact area" as defined within NHTSAs regulations. Such determination would be made by undertaking the necessary calculations under paragraph S5.2.2 of FMVSS No. 201. However, because we have not examined the vehicle in question, we do not express any opinion as to whether the rear of the headrest in the present case is within the "head impact area" under the standard.

3. Is the rear portion of a vehicles front headrest considered to be a seat back pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.201S5?

NHTSAs regulations do not define the term "seat back." However, as noted above, under paragraph S5.2.2(d) of FMVSS No. 201, the test procedures clearly contemplate the presence of a headrest when conducting the necessary calculations related to seat backs. Additionally, FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints, requires motor vehicle manufacturers to install head restraints at each front outboard seating position of light passenger vehicles. In light of the purpose of FMVSS No. 201, it is appropriate to include headrests within the scope of the standards protection, to the extent that they fall within the zone covered under the standard. Consequently, in conducting its enforcement activities, NHTSA has considered head restraints to be part of the seat back when calculating the "head impact area" under FMVSS No. 201.

4. Is the padded rear portion of a vehicles front headrest considered a "part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard?"

In order for a vehicle component to be considered a "part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard," thereby triggering the "make inoperative" provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122, it must be covered by an existing FMVSS. As discussed in the responses to questions #2 and #3 above, our review of existing FMVSSs suggests that FMVSS No. 201 may be applicable to the rear portion of a headrest, depending upon vehicle design.

However, because we have not examined the specific vehicle in question and have not conducted the necessary calculations under FMVSS No. 201, we cannot express any opinion as to whether the padded rear portion of a vehicles headrest is a plan view location covered under any FMVSS, and thereby subject to the "make inoperative" provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122.

5. Would a manufacturer of aftermarket equipment which is installed in accordance with the manufacturers instructions subject the manufacturer to liability under 49 U.S.C. 30122 if 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.201S5 is violated in the process?

If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the "make inoperative" provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(1). However, the applicability of 49 U.S.C. 30122 to a particular business is dependent upon the product or services that the business provides. As noted above, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses that install a product in a motor vehicle would be subject to 49 U.S.C. 30122.

In contrast, we have consistently held that producers of equipment, whether or not that equipment is used in a system designed to comply with a particular FMVSS, are component suppliers; as such, they are neither directly subject to the requirements of the standard, nor accountable under the "make inoperative" prohibition of 49 U.S.C. 30122. Consequently, a manufacturer of aftermarket electronic components would not be liable under 49 U.S.C. 30122, if it did not install the equipment alleged to have violated any FMVSS. However, manufacturers of motor vehicle replacement equipment are subject to the notification and remedy requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). (See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7) for the definition of "motor vehicle equipment," and 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(D) for the definition of "replacement equipment.")

In the present case, we have neither examined the television system in question nor have we investigated the incorporation of that system into this specific motor vehicle. In addition, we do not have any information on the manufacturers intended use for the television system (i.e., whether it is recommended for installation in motor vehicles). Consequently, we do not express any opinion as to whether the system is motor vehicle equipment.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.4/18/03

ID: 99aiam3.ogm

Mr. George L. Parker
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
1001 19th St. North
Suite 1200
Arlington, VA 22209

Dear Mr. Parker:

The Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards, L. Robert Shelton, has asked me to respond to several concerns that the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) has raised in both correspondence and in a meeting with the agency on August 19, 1998, regarding the interpretation of Standard 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and the compliance test procedures for that section. Your letter asks that the agency:

• again consider limiting multiple impacts in cases in which target areas are near each other,
• clarify the definition of "convertible roof frame" in the context of Standard 201,
• provide guidance on the position of sun roofs for targeting purposes,
• clarify the procedure for relocating target areas when those targets must be moved, and
• address what AIAM considers to be unacceptable potential variability between target area locations as derived by manufacturers for certification testing and by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for compliance testing.

In the August 19, 1998, meeting, AIAM and other industry participants presented additional information relating to multiple impacts. They also raised issues concerning lower face and cheek contact during testing, and procedures for relocating targets in the event that movable seat backs make a target area inaccessible for testing.

Multiple Impacts

Your letter indicates that AIAM shares the concern raised by the (former) American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) regarding multiple impacts and that you wish to raise an additional point on this issue. As your letter indicates, AAMA filed a petition for reconsideration in response to the April 8, 1997, final rule modifying the head impact provisions of Standard 201. The AAMA petition, filed on May 23, 1997, requested in part that the agency consider limiting impacts for certain target areas to one impact per individual piece of trim. In its petition, AAMA contended that test impacts may result in damage to trim components that may extend beyond the area in the immediate vicinity of the impact point. AAMA also stated that impacts by the lower face and other portions of the Free Motion Headform (FMH) that are outside of the forehead impact zone may also damage trim so that the ability of the vehicle to withstand an impact at an adjacent target area is compromised. Your letter refers specifically to the potential for an impact by the lower face to cause collateral damage to a second target area when the first is being tested. You state that the lower face and the forehead impact zone of the FMH are approximately 200 millimeters apart and that the existing limitation in S8.14(c) excluding impacts into target areas that are separated by 150 mm or less does not preclude a second impact into a target area that has been damaged by lower face contact resulting from an impact to a nearby target area. Due to this phenomenon, you argue that impacts should be limited to one impact per component.

As you are undoubtedly aware, NHTSA published a denial of the AAMA petition on April 22, 1998. (63 FR 19839) In denying the AAMA petition, the agency noted that AAMA had not submitted any data supporting its position and that the agency continued to believe that the 150 mm minimum distance between target areas was sufficient to prevent overlapping impacts. Accordingly, NHTSA denied the AAMA request to limit impacts to one impact per component.

AAMA presented additional data relating to the consequences of contact between lower portions of the Free Motion Headform and interior trim components during the August 19, 1998, meeting. These data indicate that contact between the lower portion of the FMH and interior trim during testing of one target area may degrade the performance of the trim in the area of the contact to an extent that it may be difficult, if not impossible, for the vehicle to meet the specifications of Standard 201 when tested at a target area in the vicinity of the lower face contact.

The agency recognizes that Standard 201 does not require that a component sustain multiple impacts at a single target area without any degradation in performance. S8.14(c) currently provides that no impact may occur within 150 mm of another impact. This distance was selected because of the possibility that collateral damage could occur when the forehead impact zone of the FMH, which is 125 mm wide, makes contact with an intended target point. In setting this distance, NHTSA did not consider the length of the FMH as well as its width. The agency will initiate rulemaking to consider the possibility of amending the Standard to provide that on certain vertical interior surfaces, notably pillars, roll bars and stiffeners, a target area that is within 200 millimeters of another target area, measured from the center of each target, that has been impacted by the FMH during a compliance test shall be not be tested. The proposal would be limited to vertical surfaces since lower face impacts are most likely to occur on vertical surfaces where the distance between the lower face and the forehead impact zone becomes an issue. However, in cases in which a target on one side of the vehicle is not used because of its proximity to another impact area, the corresponding target on the other side of the vehicle will be used. By testing in this fashion, the agency will be able to test all target points to the requirements of Standard 201 without requiring that targets meet these requirements in multiple impacts.

Lower Face Contact and HIC Calculation

Another item of concern discussed at the August 19, 1998, meeting was the effect of lower face or cheek contact on the measurement of compliance with the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) specified for Standard 201. AIAM, AAMA and others are concerned that, in a number of test configurations, the lower portion of the FMH "face" contacts the vehicle interior either at the same time or very shortly after the forehead impact zone of the FMH contacts a target area. They allege that the contact between the lower portion of the FMH "face" and the vehicle interior in these circumstances results in additional acceleration that may cause the resultant HIC to be higher than it would be if the contact were between the forehead impact zone and the intended target area alone. AAMA recommended that in cases in which the injury reference values are exceeded during compliance testing and it is subsequently determined that early lower face involvement is the cause, the test be rerun with an increased off-set angle sufficient to create an identifiable degree of separation time between forehead impact and the lower face contact. Data developed by General Motors and presented at the August 19, 1998, meeting were used to support the contention that an off-set angle of 25 degrees is needed to delay lower face impact beyond the HIC calculation time period. During that same meeting, Mitsubishi presented an example of a series of tests in which impacts to an upper roof target area resulted in contact between the lower face of the FMH and a nearby B-pillar target, BP-1. According to Mitsubishi, the lower face contact occurred within 6 milliseconds of the forehead striking its intended target, and the accelerations resulting from both impacts could not be distinguished. The result of these two cumulative impacts was purportedly to increase the HIC score to fifty percent above that measured when no lower face contact occurred.

NHTSA does not intend to initiate rulemaking to increase the offset angles beyond those currently contained in Standard 201. In the August 18, 1995, final rule establishing new specifications for Standard 201 (60 FR 43031), the agency indicated that the final rule allowed a five degree lower face offset for targets on the A-pillar and other targets that are not pillars and a ten degree offset for any other pillar. The offset angle provisions were inserted into Standard 201 after several manufacturers submitted comments indicating that early lower face contact could change measured acceleration levels when compared to impacts on an identical target in which lower face contact did not take place. Tilting the FMH in this fashion would create an offset clearance that would delay lower face contact beyond the time of the HIC calculation, which NHTSA found occurred within 20 milliseconds. The five and ten degree offset angles also did not fundamentally alter the kinematics of the FMH other than to delay lower face contact, so that the safety consequences of allowing the use of these angles were not significant. As inserting the five and ten degree offset angles did not have real safety consequences, the agency felt it was appropriate to do so.

Although the data presented at the August 19, 1998, meeting indicate that the existing five and ten degree offsets may not be sufficient to prevent lower face contact during the time of HIC calculation, the agency has reconsidered its earlier position implying that accelerations from lower face contact occuring within 20 milliseconds of forehead impact should not be included in the HIC score. NHTSA has reviewed the research data used during development of Standard 201 to construct the transform function used in calculating HIC when the FMH strikes a vehicle interior. These data include the results from testing in which the FMH was launched into padded and unpadded surfaces mounted at different angles to represent the interior of a vehicle. In some of these impacts, portions of the lower face of the FMH struck portions of the target structure during the period in which the HIC calculation was taking place. As these data were used to develop the method of determining HIC scores in Standard 201, consideration of the effects of impacts of the lower front surface of the FMH on interior surfaces has already been integrated into the transform function. Because the transform function provides the means for determining HIC when the FMH strikes an interior surface, any implication that lower face contact should not be allowed during the time of the HIC calculation because that contact would improperly influence HIC, is contrary to the research data used in developing the Standard. Accordingly, lower face impacts should be included in Standard 201's evaluation of vehicle performance in those instances in which lower face contact results in a higher HIC score.

In real-world crashes, contact between the vehicle interior and portions of the head other than the forehead is common. The agency believes that the interests of safety demand that countermeasures be developed so that impact accelerations do not produce a HIC greater than 1000 in those instances in which the impact occurs over a larger area of the head. While the offset angles now contained in Standard 201 do not significantly reduce impact speed or the kinetic energy resulting from impact, further increases in the lower face offset could have significant safety consequences. Adopting a 25 degree offset, as suggested by AAMA, would reduce the effective impact speed of the FMH by 10 percent and the kinetic energy of the impact by 18 percent. In addition, allowing the FMH to rotate freely during HIC calculations would also dissipate a small portion of the total kinetic energy. Adopting AAMA's recommendation would be equivalent to a 20 percent reduction in the intended allowable impact energy.

While our review of the underlying data indicates that the use of any offset angles is unnecessary, NHTSA does not presently plan to initiate rulemaking to eliminate the existing offsets, as retaining them does not have any negative impact on safety. Increasing the present offset angles beyond that which is currently specified in Standard 201 could, however, have significant safety consequences. The agency is therefore retaining the existing offset angles and is rejecting the suggestion that they be increased.

Impacts with Glazing

Chrysler engineers presented a front header impact test at the August 19, 1998 meeting in which the FMH struck a front header target and then glanced off the target and contacted the windshield. The particular configuration of the front header and the windshield resulted in the FMH striking the target area at a relatively shallow angle, making a glancing impact with the target area, and then contacting the windshield. The resultant HIC was over 1000, while subsequent impacts to the front header which did not involve the FMH striking the windshield produced a HIC of less than 1000.

Standard 201 is not intended to prevent injuries resulting from impacts with glazing. The current test procedure provides that during testing, window glass is to be placed in the down position. In the case of stationary glazing, such as windshields, rear windows, fixed quarter windows or glazing other than sun roofs, it may not be possible to move the glass to prevent impacts with the FMH when an adjacent target area is tested. If the glazing cannot be moved and the anterior portion of the FMH strikes the glass near or at the same time that the forehead impact zone strikes the target, and thereby affects the HIC, NHTSA will regard the test as invalid.

Definition of Convertible Roof Frame

Your letter also asks that NHTSA clarify the definition of "convertible roof frame" as used in S6.3(a) of Standard 201. That section defines "convertible roof frame" as the "frame of a convertible roof." Section 6.3(a) excludes convertible roof frames and roof linkage assemblies from meeting the impact requirements of S6.1 through S6.2. You wish to know if the definition of "convertible roof frame" includes cross members and braces as these components can be considered to be part of the roof frame and suggest that "cross members and roof braces should be excluded because they are difficult to target and test. . ." because they would tend to vibrate or deflect with impact. Finally, you indicate that these structures "are not likely to offer significant head impact risk."

Under common usage, a frame is considered to be a rigid structure formed of relatively slender pieces joined together to provide major support to a building or structure. Under the commonly accepted meaning of "frame," the cross members and braces of a convertible roof would be considered to be part of the "frame" as they are integrated into the larger structure that provides shape and support for the roof itself. Accordingly, as convertible roof frame is presently defined in Standard 201, such braces and cross members are, by definition, excluded from testing.

AIAM is also concerned about hard top convertible roofs. The agency addressed the issue of hard top convertible roofs in its April 22, 1998, denial of the petition filed by ASC, Incorporated.

As indicated in that notice, NHTSA believes that integrated or hard top convertible tops can and must meet the requirements of Standard 201.

Window and Sunroof Position for Targeting and Impact Testing

As observed in your letter, S8.2(c) of Standard 201 indicates that movable sun roofs are placed in the fully open position for compliance testing. However, the Standard does not address the position of movable sun roofs for targeting. AIAM asks if movable sun roofs are placed in the open or closed position for targeting purposes and suggests that NHTSA intended that movable sun roofs be placed in the closed position when targets are located. This conclusion is based on AIAM's view that certain targets, such as the front header target (FH2) could be located at the sunroof opening. AIAM believes that if this target is located on a sunroof opening with the sunroof open, manufacturers would have to test using test configurations in which the head form would travel through an area above the roof line prior to impact. In AIAM's view, such a test configuration "would not be realistic in the real-world" and goes beyond the intent of the Standard to provide protection against the "interior" head impact.

NHTSA believes that those targets that may be located at a sunroof opening should be located with the vehicle in the same condition as during testing. The sunroof should therefore be in the open position. The agency does not share AIAM's view that this procedure is contrary to the intent of the Standard or would produce an absurd result. Pursuant to S8.13, the headform may be launched against a target from any point inside the vehicle, limited only by the approach angle limits specified for that target. While the use of certain vertical approach angles may result in a portion of the head form traveling along a path above the roof line of the vehicle as it travels from a point inside the vehicle, the agency believes that the likelihood of this occurring is small. NHTSA also observes that as the headform originates inside the vehicle, such an impact could occur in real world impacts.

Measured Along the Vehicle Interior Requirement

As set forth in the August 18, 1995 final rule, S8(b) contained the procedure for relocating targets when it was not possible for the forehead impact zone of the FMH to contact a target. That procedure specified that the target could be relocated to any point within a 25 mm circle, measured along the vehicle interior, from the center of the original target. Your letter states that the April 8, 1997, final rule, which amended the procedures in S8(b) (and redesignated the section as S10(b)) for relocating target areas, modified the relocation procedure to allow movement within a sphere rather than a circle. You observe that the procedure continues to provide that the radius of sphere is determined by measuring from the center of the original target area along the vehicle interior and contend that this directive is inconsistent with the April 8, 1997, amendment, as that amendment changed the acceptable relocation area from a circle to a sphere. In your view, measuring the radius of this sphere along the interior would defeat the purpose of specifying a sphere rather than a circle.

We agree with your view. The existing language's specification that the distance be measured along the vehicle interior, which restricts the measurement to following the contour of an interior surface, is not consistent with the use of a sphere for relocating targets. Accordingly, the agency has deleted the reference to "measured along the vehicle interior" found in S10(b) through a technical amendment.

Variability in the Location of Head Impact Target Areas

Your letter also voices AIAM's concern that neither Standard 201 or the compliance test procedure addresses the potential for variation in the location of target areas as determined by manufacturers and the agency when compliance testing is performed. AIAM indicates that the potential for variation between both vehicles and target locations when performed by different parties jeopardizes the ability of manufacturers to certify their vehicle with a high degree of confidence. To address this difficulty, AIAM suggests that NHTSA specify an allowable variation within the 12.7 mm diameter size of the target marker and adopt a set of procedures for the agency to follow in locating target areas. In this suggested procedure, the agency would locate target areas through obtaining drawings of the target areas for a vehicle from the manufacturer and then reach a mutual agreement with the manufacturer regarding the "correct" target locations prior to any agency testing. Once this procedure is concluded, you also urge the agency to further reduce the potential for variations by using the manufacturer's drawings to locate the seating anchorage points to serve as a reference for locating targets with the use of a coordinate measuring machine. AIAM also suggests that a coordinate measuring machine be used to locate CGF1, CGF2, and CGR, reference points that are located in mid-air, to limit inaccuracies that may result from inaccuracies from other measurement and location methods.

The agency acknowledges that the potential for variation between the location of target areas as determined by the manufacturer and the agency exists. NHTSA is also aware that a certain degree of variation may occur between different vehicles manufactured to the same design. Nonetheless, the agency declines to adopt the procedures suggested in your letter. It is the intent of Standard 201 to ensure that proper protection is provided by the various components addressed by the standard and not merely a few target points. In adopting target points rather than zones, the agency rejected the argument that even zones would create unduly burdensome test conditions. (60 FR 43037). Moreover, the existing procedures for locating target areas were carefully developed by the agency and further refined since their inception to address manufacturer arguments that use of larger target areas would require an extensive amount of testing to verify compliance. While some degree of variation between different examples of the same vehicle or between target locations fixed by different entities performing tests is inevitable, NHTSA believes that such variations are not likely to be unpredictable or large. If the agency were to use manufacturer supplied drawings to locate target areas for compliance testing, it would be providing manufacturers with an undue degree of control over the compliance testing process and acting in derogation of the overall purpose of the Standard. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to assure compliance within the range associated with the target points.

The agency observes that the Standard 201 laboratory test procedure contains certain tolerances which, to a degree, address the issue of variability. However, your member companies should be advised that test procedures are not rules, regulations or agency interpretations regarding the meaning of a safety standard and are not intended to limit the requirements of any applicable standard.

Movable Seat Backs

During the August 19, 1998, meeting, concerns were also raised about the possibility of movable seat backs preventing access to target areas and preventing contact between the forehead impact zone of the FMH and the intended target. It is the agency's position that in the case of potential interference between a movable seat back and a target area, the movable seat back should be placed in any adjustment position that may be attained while the vehicle is in motion.

Accordingly, if a seat back may be reclined for comfort or is hinged to allow ingress or egress to an area of the vehicle, targeting and testing of target areas near that seat back will be conducted with the seat back in any position within the range of adjustment or movement.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:201
d.2/19/99

ID: aiam0833

Dear Mr. Graham: This is in reply to your letter of August 25, 1972, concerning th application of section S4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 to a folding dinette seat manufactured by your company for use in recreational vehicles.; The seat you describe has a back that folds flat to make a bed. A sea back that travels through such a large arc does not fall within the limited exceptions provided in S4.3 for a 'back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants,' and it must therefore be equipped with a restraining device conforming to S4.3. The quoted language applies to the type of seat whose back is adjustable through a few degrees of arc to provide a variety of riding positions for persons of different sizes and postures. A seat back that folds to the point where it no longer restrains the longitudinal motion of the occupant is required to have a device that prevents it from assuming that position accidentally.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenji Tashima Project Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Tashima:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether various vehicle seating designs being considered by your company would qualify as auxiliary seating positions and not be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These seats would be installed in extended-cab pick-up trucks behind the driver's and front passenger seats and would include storage space beneath the seating accommodation.

A seating accommodation is subject to the vehicle safety standards (e. g., Standards Nos. 207, 208) if it qualifies as a "designated seating position". That term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

"any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats..."

In our opinion, most of the seat designs included in your illustrations would be considered to be designated seating positions. We would not consider the seats to be "auxiliary seating accommodations" since, as you stated in meeting with us, they would be present as a cushioned seat a majority of the time, i.e., without having to fold the seats down or move them around as is necessary with a temporary jump seat. The fact that the seats are not "auxiliary is further evidenced to a certain extent by the fact that the cab of the pick-up trucks would be extended to accommodate the seats so that four persons could ride inside the vehicle. You do not suggest that the cab would be extended for the primary purpose of providing the small amount of storage space that would be beneath these seats.

In your illustrations, seat designs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H have an overall seat configuration such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle likely to be used as seats since design D does not have a cushion (just a board) and design E does not have a seat back. If these two designs were combined, i.e., no seat back and no seat cushion, the agency would consider the positions to be auxiliary seating positions, depending on the agency's assessment of the seat together with the total passenger compartment design. I would like to emphasize, however,that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine whether or not its vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and to certify that compliance. Therefore, your company would have to make its own determination concerning whether any of these designs would qualify as designated seating positions. the agency can only offer its opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The agency would make its own final determination only during an enforcement investigation involving a certified vehicle.

You also asked the following general questions regarding all of the designs illustrated in your letter: are seat belts required, is seat size a factor in determining whether a seat is auxiliary, and is there a distinction in the determinations if a bench seat is used instead of two separate cushions? As mentioned earlier, seat belts are required if a particular accommodation is determined to be a designated seating position. Seat size is a factor in determining whether a particular position is a designated seating position to the extent that the definition of that term specifies, as a threshold, a space capable of accommodating at least a 5th percentile adult female (your letter notes that all your designs are capable of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female). Whether or not a particular positions is designed as a bench weat or as separate cushions is generally irrelevant to the determination of whether the seat qualifies as a designated seat position.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3487

Dear Mr. Knoedler: This responds to your letter concerning the application of Standard No 213, *Child Restraint Systems*, to a booster seat that uses a vehicle lap belt or lap/shoulder belt to restrain a child weighing 20 or more pounds. The following discussion answers your questions concerning the application of specific sections of the standard to a booster seat.; Section 4 of the standard defines a 'child restraint system' as 'an 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.' Since the booster seat you described would be used to seat a child weighing less than 50 pounds in a vehicle, it is a child restraint system and thus must meet the requirements of the standard. The vehicle lap belt (Type I belt) or lap/shoulder belt (Type II belt) used with the system are specifically excluded by the definition of child restraint system and thus are not covered by the requirements of the standard.; You said that the booster seat would have no sides, back or fixed o movable surface directly in front of the child and asked how the standard would apply to such a design. The standard does not require a child restraint to have a back, sides or fixed or movable surface in front of the child. If such surfaces are provided, however, they must comply with the applicable requirements of sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4.; Each child restraint is required to meet the minimum head suppor surface requirements of S5.2.1. Section 5.2.1.2, however, exempts forward-facing child restraint (sic) from the minimum head support surface requirement if, 'the target point on either side of the dummy's head is below a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the standard seat assembly when the dummy is positioned in the system and the system is installed on the assembly in accordance with S6.1.2.' Thus, unless your design is within the exception of S5.2.1.2, it would have to comply with the minimum head support requirements of S5.2.1.1. Any head support surface would also have to comply with the applicable requirements of S5.2.3. and S5.2.4.; You asked about the application of S5.4.3.2 to a booster seat. Sectio 5.4.3.2 provides that:; >>>Each belt *that is a part of a child restraint system* and that i designed to restrain a child using the system and to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from the mass of the system or the mass of the seat back of the standard seat assembly specified in S7.3. (Emphasis added.); <<>>(c) In the case of each seating system recommended for children ove 20 pounds, crotch restraint in the form of:; (i) a crotch strap connectable to the lap belt or other device used t restrain the lower torso, or; (ii) a fixed or movable surface that complies with S5.2.2.1(c).<<< The purpose of subsection (c) is to require a belt or surface desig that will prevent the child from submarining under the lap belt (i.e., sliding down and forward under the belt). Thus, if a crotch belt is not provided, the surface of the restraint must be designed to prevent submarining and comply with S5.2.2.1(c). For example, the seating surface of the restrain could be designed to prevent submarining.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 86-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North American Rockleigh, NJ 07647 Dear Mr. Shapiro: Thank you for your letter of November 14, 1985, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You explained that Volvo is planning to voluntarily add an extra anchorage for type 2 safety belt in the middle rear designated seating position, which is already equipped with two anchorages for a Type 1 safety belt. You asked whether the third anchorage point would have to meet the anchorage location requirements set forth in S4.3.2 of the standard. As explained below, the additional anchorage would not have to comply with the location requirements of the standard. As you correctly pointed out, S4.1.2 allows manufacturers the option of installing anchorages for either a Type1 or Type 2 safety belt at the center rear designated seating position. Thus, by providing anchorages for a Type 1 belt at that seating position. Thus, by providing anchorages for a Type 1 belt at that seating position, Volvo has met the installation requirement of S4.1.2 The agency has stated in past interpretations, such as in a March 1, 1979 letter to Ford, that systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems to comply with the standards. Thus, you may install a third anchorage if it does not affect the ability of the required anchorages to meet the standard. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

11/14/85

Re: Request for Interpretation Std. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Dear Ms. Erika Jones:

FMVSS #210 specifies that seat belt anchorages for Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars other than convertibles, The standard goes on to require that seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position, except a passenger seat in a bus, or a designated seating position for which seat belt anchorages for Type 2 seat belt assembly are required by S 4.1.1.

Volvo is planning to voluntarily add an extra anchorage for a Type 2 seat belt in the middle rear designated seating position. This is in addition to the two (2) anchorage points for a Type 1 seat belt that are used to meet the requirements of S.4.1.2.

We interpret that this voluntary third anchorage point does not have to meet the requirements in S.4.3.2 Location. Please confirm this interpretation as soon as possible.

If additional information is required on this matter, don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulator Affairs Product Planning and Development Volvo Cars of North America

ID: nht72-4.11

DATE: 06/02/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 9, 1972, in which you again raise the problem of where to place the seat in tests for which Standard 208 specifies that the seat is to be at the midway position but the seat track has no adjustment position that coincides with the midway point.

Our reply of March 2, 1972, stated that when the midway point is exactly halfway between two adjustment notches, the seat should be placed in the rear notch. You are correct in pointing out that if the notches were on the upper seat rail the seat would be moved forward if these instructions were followed. It was our intent to specify rearward seat movement in each case in which the midway point on the track fell exactly between two notches. In Case (2) of your letter, therefore, it will be our practise to move the seat rearward from the position shown in red until the next notch is reached.