ID: nht88-2.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: S. ROBSON -- SR. PROJECT ENGINEER - VEHICLE REGULATIONS MACK TRUCKS, INC.

TITLE: NOA - 30

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/03/88 TO BARRY NUDD FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32(3), STANDARD 207, VSA 108; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM BARRY NUDD

TEXT: Dear Mr. Robson:

This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the test procedures of Safety Standard No. 207. You ask whether a seat in a heavy duty truck must remain in its adjusted position when tested with a load of 20 times the weight of the entire seat, if the seat has been tested and remains in its adjusted position when subjected to a load of 20 times the weight of the adjustable upper section of the seat.

This question arises because of the configuration of some heavy-duty truck seats which include suspension fixtures (pedestal structures) on which the upper seat section rests. Safety Standard No. 207 requires seats to withstand a load equal to 20 times their weight and requires the seats to remain in their adjusted position during the required loading (paragraph S4.2). The upper seat sections and adjusters or your truck seats are tested on rigid test beds by the seat manufacturer and reportedly comply with the adjuster provision of S4.2. However, when you test these seats in the actual vehicle (applying 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including pedestal), the center of gravity falls on the seat adjuster and the seat does not always stay in it s adjusted position during loading.

In answer to your specific question, the seat must remain in its adjusted position when tested to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, as required by paragraph S4.2 or the standard. We would agree with you, however, that with a seat configuration suc h as you describe, the adjusters and upper seat section would never experience a loading of 20 times the weight of the entire seat in an actual crash. Your problem appears to arise because the center of gravity of this seat happens to fall on the seat a djusters and the standard requires the

loading to be applied through the center of gravity. The purpose of this loading requirement, however, is to ensure the integrity of the entire seat as it is attached to the vehicle structure.

Therefore, it is our opinion that for a pedestal seat such as you describe, a manufacturer could establish due care through a combined test procedure which would load the seat adjusters and upper seat section to only 20 times the weight of those componen ts to determine if the seat would remain in its adjusted position, and which would load the seat as anchored to the vehicle structure to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

ID: aiam3941

Dear Mr. Slyman: Thank you for your letter of March 21, 1985 asking how the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act affects one of your clients. I hope the following discussion will explain the provisions of the Act.; You explained in your letter and a phone conversation of April 4, 1985 with Stephen Oesch of my staff that your client sold a new 1977 Dodge Van to Mon Valley United Health Services in March 1977. At the time of sale, the van was converted by Braun Corporation from a passenger van to a wheelchair van. Approximately two years after its purchase, Mon Valley requested your client to install a bench seat in the rear of the van. You stated that Mon Valley asked that the new seat not have safety belts and thus your client did not install them. Subsequently, a passenger sitting in the rear seat was injured in a crash and your client was sued for negligence.; I want to emphasize that our comments relate only to our interpretatio of the Safety Act from our vantage point as a Federal enforcement agency. The effect of Safety Act provisions in private products liability and negligence actions is a matter for state courts to determine.; You asked whether your client violated Section 108 and 125 of th Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1410) by not installing safety belts in a vehicle when it installed the bench seat in the used van. Because the vehicle involved was a used vehicle at the time the rear bench seat was installed, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(1)(A) against selling or otherwise introducing into interstate commerce a new vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would not apply to your client. This is because Section 108(b)(1) of the Act specifically provides that the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(1)(A) do not apply after the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) may have an effect on your client's action. Tha section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) applies whether the vehicle is a new or used vehicle. Thus if the used van had safety belts in it at the position where your client installed the bench seat and your client removed them, there may have been a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A). If the used van did not have safety belts at that position, Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not create an affirmative duty under Federal law to install safety belts. However, there may be such a duty under State statutory or common law. The other prohibitions of Section 108 do not apply to the situation you have described. Likewise Section 125 of the Act, which sets forth limitations on the agency's rulemaking authority, does not apply to your client's situation.; Other than Section 108(a)(2)(A), there are no other provisions of th Act that apply to your client's installation of a bench seat on a used vehicle.; If you have further questions, Stephen Oesch of my staff (202-426-2992 would be glad to assist you.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2847

Dear Mr. Black: This responds to your recent letter concerning Alfa Romeo's propose 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 Assembl 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 th 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 degree - 75 degree acceptable range. The upper torso portions of the belt designs do not have to comply with the 40 degree 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 define 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 degree zone and then passes through a webbing guide anchorage.' The 40 degree 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 degree - 75 degree 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 woul 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 degree acceptable range for upper torso portions of Type 2 belts.; Please contact Hugh Oates of this office if you have any furthe questions concerning this subject (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/02/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: B. Henderson -- Automobile Importers of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. B. Henderson Automobile Importers of America, Inc. 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1002 Arlington, VA 22202

This responds to your letter of November 8, 1984, asking numerous questions concerning Standards No. 208, 209 and 210. The answer to your questions, numbered as presented in the attachment to your letter, are as follows:

1.) S.7.4.4 of Standard No. 208 sets requirements concerning access to the latchplate on the outboard side of a seat. The purpose of the requirement is to make safety belts more convenient to operate by requiring the latchplate to be accessible. You asked, in effect, whether the requirements of S7.4.4 also applies to an inboard mounted buckle located between the seat and a console. The answer is no. An inboard mounted buckle, however, must comply with the requirements of S7.4.6.

2.) You asked what is the meaning of the terms "comfort clip and window-shade" in section 7.4.2 of Standard No. 208. The terms refer to elements of a safety belt system which are used to relieve tension in the torso portion of a Type 2 lap-shoulder belt. A comfort clip is a device which attaches to the belt and can be positioned by an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the belt system by physically preventing the belt slack from being taken up by the belt's retractor. The term window-shade refers to a type of device in a safety belt retractor which allows an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the belt once it has been adjusted around the occupant.

3.) You asked if it is considered, "Action", if the driver hangs the webbing of an automatic belt on a manual convenience hook. An automatic belt must provide protection by means that require no action by the vehicle occupants. Manual vehicle convenience hooks used with an automatic belt system must comply with S 7.4.1 of the Standard, which requires a convenience hook to automatically release under specified conditions.

4.) You asked if it is mandatory to use 7/16-20 UNF 2A or 1/2-13 UNC-2A bolts for automatic belt mounting hardware. The answer is no. Automatic belts meeting the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are not required to meet all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. The enclosed interpretation letter of August 7, 1981, to Volkswagen more fully explains the application of Standard No. 209 to automatic belts.

5.) You asked if the retractor of a rear lap belt is a 2 point mounting type, are both points considered to be anchorage points? You also asked if both points must be within the range specified in S 4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210.

Standard No. 210 defines an anchorage as "provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." If by a two point mounting you mean a retractor that has two means for transferring the belt loads to the vehicle structures, then both points are anchorages and must conform to Standard No. 210. The range specified in S4.3.1.1. is measured from the seating reference point to the point of contact of the webbing with its attachment hardware. It does not require the anchorage points to be within that range.

6.) Finally, you asked what is the definition of the term "most upright position" used in S 4.3.2.1 of Standard No. 210. In referring to the "most upright position" of the seat back, the agency means the seat back adjustment position which most closely approximates a vertical position.

I hope this information is of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 8, 1984

Office of Chief Counsel NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please provide a written interpretation of the following question:

FMVSSS 210, Section 4.3.2. requires that the seat back be "in its most upright position". Please define the phrase "in its most upright position".

Also please provide answers for the questions on the attached page.

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Automobile Importers of America, Inc.

B. Henderson

BH:js Attachments

QUESTIONS ON FMVSS 208, 209, 210.

1. FMVSS 208 S.7.4.4. states "the side of the vehicle interior to allow unhindered transit of the test block defined in Figure 4 of this standard to the latch plate or buckle......"

Does it mean that the whole buckle should be in the test block area as illustrated in Fig. A below?

What if the only push-button of the buckle fall in that test block area as illustrated in Fig. B below?

"INSERT"

Figure A Figure B

2. What is the meaning of comfort clip and window-shade? (in FMVSS 208 S.7.4.2)

3. Is it considered to be 'Action' if the driver hangs the webbing on the hook of the passive belt with manual convenience hook?

(New regulation FMVSS 208 5.4.1.2.1.1)

4. Is it mandatory to use 7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13 UNC-21 for the passive belt mounting hardware? (FMVSS 209 S.4.1(f)).

5. If the retractor or reel of the rear lap belt is 2 point mounting type, are both points considered to be anchorage points? Should both points be in the range defined in the FMVSS 210 S.4.3.1.1?

6. What is the definition of 'most upright position' of seat back in the FMVSS 210 S.4.3.2.1?

ID: nht78-1.43

DATE: 06/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H. Dugoff for Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 10, 1979, letter asking questions about 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 of 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 large 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,

Illinois Department of Transportation

May 10, 1979

Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

This letter requests answers to questions concerning federal requirements for seats and seat belts in school buses with a 10,000 pound or less gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

The Illinois standards for construction of school buses include the applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) by reference. This establishes a ready means for school districts, transportation contractors, and others to include the FMVSS in bus purchase orders or contracts, thereby making a violation of them a breach of contract. Inclusion also tends to enhance the ability of State safety inspections and enforcement. These latter activities have generated two questions.

1. Does FMVSS 222 prohibit introduction into interstate commerce a new school bus, GVWR 10,000 pounds or less, with seats located so there is more than 21 inches between the rear surface of one or more forward facing passenger seats and the closest seating reference point of the forward facing passenger seat to the rear?

This question arises in connection with buses transporting (mostly) the larger sizes of high school age pupils, "activity buses", and "special education buses" (those carrying handicapped pupils). These school buses are purchased by government agencies (such as school districts) and by private parties (such as churches, contractors, etc.). Because S5.2 of FMVSS 222 does not apply to 10,000 pound or lighter buses, we believe the proper answer is "NO".

2. Does FMVSS 222 allow a manufacturer or alterer to install only one lap belt (Type 1 seat belt) on each passenger seat in a new school bus with 10,000 pounds or less GVWR: i.e., one lap belt, with two anchors, to go around 2, or 3, or more passengers properly in a seat?

We believe the proper answer is "NO" -- especially so since publication of your notification (43 FR 21893) and discussion (44 FR 23229 et seq) concerning designated seating positions, with your emphasis on the need for a restraint at each position where a passenger is likely to sit. We do not believe that 1 relatively long lap belt with its 2 anchors spaced sufficiently far apart to accommodate 2 or more properly seated passengers will safely restrain one passenger sitting somewhere in a 2-passenger or wider seat -- especially when that passenger is a relatively small pupil. Also, we do not believe that seat belt anchors spaced closely enough for properly restraining one passenger will allow a long lap belt to restrain 2 or more passengers properly, or without generating excessive belt-induced crash injury. As we read FMVSS 222, its only change of the "restraint standards" included by reference (FMVSS 208, 209, & 210) is the use of a 10 inch pelvic body block (depicted in FMVSS 222) in place of a 16 inch pelvic body block (depicted in FMVSS 210).

If your answer to either questions is "YES", we probably will need other answers. Therefore, we will appreciate an early response to each question in order that our instructions to field personnel and inspection stations may be firmed up in the near future.

If, in the preparation of your response, you feel that more details are needed or that you have questions which need answering, please feel free to contact the following members of my staff: Mr. Larry F. Wort, Chief of the Bureau of Safety Operations, 217/782-4974; or Mr. Madison Post, Standards Engineer, 217/782-2920.

Karsten J. Vieg, Director Division of Traffic Safety

ID: 07-001357drn

ID: nht92-9.1

DATE: February 18, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William F. Russo, Esq. -- Margolis, Sakayan & Holtz

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/21/92 from William F. Russo to Steven P. Wood (OCC 6901)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). Specifically, you were interested in the requirement in S4.1 that "seat belt anchorages" for particular types of seat belts shall be installed at particular seating positions. You asked for an explanation of precisely what this requirement obliges a vehicle manufacturer to do.

The term "seat belt anchorage" is defined in S3 of Standard No. 210 as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." When S4.1 of Standard No. 210 requires a "seat belt anchorage" for a seat belt to be installed at a given seating position, the manufacturer must provide a point or points for that seating position that comply with the strength requirements of S4.2 applicable to that type of anchorage and with the location requirements of S4.3 applicable to that type of anchorage. The designated point may simply be a point on the vehicle structure (floor, sides, or room, or a point on the seat itself, for instance.

The point designated by the vehicle manufacturer in response to the requirement in S4.1 need not be a prepunched or prethreaded hole, it need not be visible, and it need not include the anchorage hardware. If the agency were seeking to impose these additional conditions on anchorages, it would have included specific language to that effect in the standard. See, for example, the proposal to amend Standard No. 210 at 45 FR 81625; December 11, 1980. When these additional conditions are not expressly set forth in the text of the standard, they are not required to be included as part of the anchorage at that seating position.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 86-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David E. Martin -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, GM

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation 30400 Mound Road Warren, MI 48090-9015

Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1985, to Administrator Steed concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in our response.

You asked the agency to reconsider its interpretation of the requirements of S4.1.1 of the standard which requires the installation of "seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly" at certain positions in motor vehicles. You specifically asked that we issue a new interpretation that S4.1.1 is satisfied by installation of safety belt anchorages utilized by a safety belt meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You also asked that if a new interpretation could not be issued, then the agency should treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking. As discussed below, the agency believes that the change you seek can only be made by a rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, as you requested, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking, which is granted.

You offered several arguments in support of your view that the existing language of S4.1.1 is satisfied if a passenger car is equipped with anchorages for safety belts meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You noted that the definition of a Type 2 safety belt assembly set forth in S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints and does not differentiate between manual and automatic belts. You also noted that S4.3(j) of Standard no. 209 applies to Type 1 and Type 2 belts and that the agency has interpreted section S4.3(j) to apply to both automatic and manual safety belts.

You also argued that redundant anchorages would not be used since an owner would not purchase an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle "B" pillar, if a door-anchored safety belt were available from the manufacturer. You said this would be particularly true of the door-mounted detachable automatic safety belts General Motors intends to use. In addition, you pointed out that the agency April 1985 proposal to require dynamic testing of manual belts also supports the elimination of the requirement for additional anchorages. You noted that the agency proposed that dynamically-tested manual belts would be exempt from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210. Thus, a manufacturer may have anchorages outside of Standard No. 210 location zones, but the automatic belts attached to the anchorages would meet the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 205. You said that a manual belt attached to anchorages within Standard No. 201's zone might not meet Standard No. 208's occupant protection requirements.

Finally, you said that the cost impact of providing the additional anchorages is not minimal. You said that "the cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints."

While we believe that you have raised a number of important issues concerning the current requirements of Standard No. 210, we believe that given the specific language of S4.1.1, any change to those requirements can only be made through a rulemaking proceeding. Standard No. 210, as currently written, specifically refers to providing anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt. The agency his consistently recognized a distinction between Type 2 belts and automatic belts. That distinction is based on a comparison of the design features of a two point automatic belt with those of a Type 2 lap/shoulder safety belt. Standard No. 209 defines a seat belt assembly as "a strap, webbing, or similar device" used to secure a person in a crash. Under Standard No. 203. a Type 2 seat belt assembly is defined as a strap, webbing or similar device which provides "pelvic and upper torso restraint." Thus, a Type 2 safety belt provides webbing to restrain both the pelvis and upper torso and requires three anchorages to be installed. In contrast, an automatic belt can use webbing to provide upper torso restraint, which would require two anchorages to install, and not have webbing to restrain the pelvis. Instead, a two point automatic belt relies on non-belt technology, such as a knee bolster, to restrain movement of the pelvis.

The agency recognized the design distinctions between Type 2 belts and automatic belts by specifically providing a separate definition of automatic belt in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208. In addition, the agency recognized a distinction between automatic and Type 2 belts by specifying in Standard No. 208 that an automatic belt may be used "in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by" S4 of the standard. The other seat belt assemblies required by 54 are Type 1 and Type 2 systems. To further contrast the distinction between automatic belts and Type 2 belts, S4.5.3.1 of Standard No. 208 specifically provides that "an automatic belt that provides only pelvic restraint may not be uses...to meet the requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option."

Given these distinctions between a Type 2 and an automatic belt, we believe that the reference to a Type 2 belt in S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires us to retain our current interpretation of that provision. However, we do believe you have raised important questions about whether that provision should be changed. We expect to begin rulemaking shortly on this issue.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

USG 2421

July 30, 1985

The Honorable Diane Steed Administrator -- NHTSA

Docket 74-14, Notice 38

Dear Ms. Steed:

General Motors is currently developing new vehicle models which will be introduced concurrent with, or after, the start of the passive restraint phase-in period. This has necessitated a review of NHTSA FMVSS interpretations as they would apply to seat belt restraint systems. It is apparent from that review that several previous NHTSA interpretations do not comprehend current automatic seat belt technology.

Of specific concern to General Motors is NHTSA documentation which suggests that automatic seat belts are experimental and, therefore, not "Type 2" seat belts for the purposes of S4.1.1. of FMVSS 210. Without assurance that the position set forth in these NHTSA documents is no longer considered current by the agency, a manufacturer is faced with the prospect of having to add manual seat belt anchors into a vehicle even though automatic seat belts are to be installed.

1 A NHTSA position that additional manual belt anchors were necessary because of the "experimental" nature of automatic seat belts was first noted in Docket 72-23, Notice 5 (43 FR 53440, dated November 27, 1978) which granted a petition by General Motors to exempt automatic belts from the anchorage location requirements in FMVSS 210. Most recently, the agency in its January 29, 1985 response to a letter from the Daihatsu Motor Company regarding the redundant anchor requirement reiterated that, "The exemption was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs."

While NHTSA's position that automatic seat belts are "experimental" was perhaps appropriate in 1978, we believe that a change is warranted in light of design developments and recent regulatory initiatives. Significant field experience has been gained over the last decade with automatic belt designs, e.g. the VW Rabbit and GM Chevette. In addition, FMVSS 208 rulemaking responses suggest that many manufacturers are currently developing such belt systems in anticipation of the passive restraint requirements. Finally, concern for public reaction to automatic seat belts, which is basic to the agency's use of the term "experimental" was discounted by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in its July 17, 1984 final rule (Docket 74-14, Notice 36). Noting that most, if not all manufacturers, would be expected to use detachable automatic seatbelts, DOT stated that, "Detachable belts should alleviate some consumer concerns about automatic belts."

The aforementioned NHTSA letters of interpretation notwithstanding, there is existing regulatory language which General Motors believes supports a position that S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210 is satis-fied if a passenger car is equipped with any belt restraint system meeting the performance requirements of FMVSS 208. Most compelling is the fact that the definition of a "Type 2" belt assembly, as set forth in S3 of FMVSS 209, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints. The definition does not differentiate between manual and automatic belt systems. Further, S4.3 (j) of FMVSS 209 states that the requirements of that section apply to Type 1 and Type 2 belt systems. This has been interpreted by the agency to include both manual and automatic seat belt systems. (See NHTSA letter of interpretation to Volkswagon, dated August 7, 1981.)

A review of FMVSS 210 regulatory history also supports a position that seat belt performance is neither assured nor necessarily limited by anchor locations. While vehicles equipped with manual belts meeting the existing anchorage location requirements of S4.3.1 of FMVSS 210 have demonstrated excellent performance in the field, this experience should not be interpreted as establishing that other anchorage locations would not have produced equally good results. In fact a parametric study by General Motors, which was provided to NHTSA in 1979 (USG 1763), suggests that specific vehicle interior parameters, such as occupant proximity to steering columns, instrument panel, etc., could have more influence on measured dummy data than some of the restraint parameters. A copy of that study is attached.

While the above discussion deals with the regulatory aspects of S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210, there are additional compelling reasons for a new interpretation of that section. These reasons are based on practical implications as well as recent rulemaking actions that bear on the existing interpretations.

Most importantly, the redundant anchors would very likely never be used. It is highly improbable that a customer would demand an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle "B" pillar, if a door anchored belt were available from the manufacturer as a replacement for the OEM automatic seat belt. This would be true whether or not the passive restraint requirements were eventually rescinded. As noted in General Motors' response to Docket 74-14; Notice 36 (USG 2284), automatic seat belt designs would need to be detachable to ensure public acceptability. As a result, a detachable automatic seat belt design would also be usable as a manual seat belt. (See Attachment 6 of USG 22B4). This "convertibility" feature would be expected to further reduce the likelihood of replacement.

The redundant seat belt anchor issue is clouded by NHTSA's recent manual belt dynamic test proposal in Docket 74-14, Notice 38. If enacted, that proposal would provide manual belts with the same exemption from the anchorage location requirements in FMVSS 210 now afforded automatic belts. This would allow manufacturers to find an optimum anchor location for manual belt systems on the basis of best overall performance. With this scenario, the S4.1.1 requirement in FMVSS 210 becomes even more inappropriate in that it may not reflect a belt anchor location needed to meet the FMVSS 208 injury criteria.

General Motors is concerned that cost factors may have been understated and this may have misled NHTSA regarding the need for a review of the current S4.1.1 interpretation. This is suggested by the agency's denial of a 1981 Toyo Kogyo petition (46 FR 54391) wherein it was stated that, ".the cost increase associated with these additional anchorages is minimal at best". The cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned, assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints.

In summary, it is General Motors view that the requirements of S4.1.1 in FMVSS 210 would be satisfied by the vehicle seat belt anchors utilized by any belt restraint system that meets the performance requirements of FMVSS 208 and requests that the agency issue an interpretation to that effect. That interpretation would acknowledge that a three-point automatic belt qualifies as a Type 2 belt; therefore, additional anchors would not be required. If such interpretation is not possible, General Motors requests notification of that fact and further requests that this letter be treated as a petition for amendment of S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210 in a manner which supports General Motors view, as set forth above.

Sincerely,

David E. Martin, Director Automotive Safety Engineering cc: B. Felrice G. Hunter S. Esch Docket 74-14, Notice 38

ID: nht68-2.43

DATE: 06/17/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Consumers Power Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 9, 1968, to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this Bureau, requesting our comments on the rear lighting arrangements you plan to use on several of your service vehicles.

With reference to the rear lighting arrangements only and with exceptions as noted below, the lighting installations shown on your standard lighting drawing appear to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to location and number of lamps.

1. The rear clearance lamps on vehicles designated by Specification Numbers (50)(54), (49), (52) and (53) do not appear to be located as near as practicable to the upper left and right extreme edges of the vehicle. Clearance lamps located on or immediately forward of the rearmost post on vehicle (50)(54) and the dump truck (54 + 74) shown on your photograph would be more in accordance with the requirements of the standard. Location of rear clearance lamps at greater heights on the rear of vehicles (50)(54), (49), (52) and (53) appears to be practicable.

2. Assuming that vehicles (27), (42) and (22)(28)(29) are less than 80 inches in overall width, Standard No. 108 requires that such vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, be equipped with either rear side marker lamps or rear side reflex reflectors. Vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1970, must be equipped with both rear side marker lamps and rear side reflex reflectors. If these vehicles are 80 inches or more in overall width, additional lighting requirements as specified in Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1968, apply.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

Thank you for your interest in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

ID: aiam5529

"Dear Mr. Kelly: This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995 requesting permission or a waiver from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow one of your clients, a 'corporation specializing in modification of vehicles for handicapped and disabled citizens,' to modify a vehicle for one of its customers. You explained that the customer 'suffers from a neuromuscular disorder which renders her partially paralyzed.' You further explained that '(s)he cannot turn the factory steering wheel because it is too thick for her to hold and too wide for her to see the gauges.' You described previous modifications done for this customer as follows: the steering box on a stock vehicle (would be) removed and the steering mechanism would be adjusted at a machine shop to a low effort or zero effort steering gear. From this point after-market steering wheels and column adapter kits would be installed to accept this new steering wheel. You explained that your client was concerned that they would no longer be permitted to make such modifications as removal of the original steering wheel also results in removal of the air bag. During an April 4, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that the vehicle is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and that the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of the steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is installed at the driver's position. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 USC 30111). Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (49 USC 30112). If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from 'knowingly making inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC 30122). In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in the customer's vehicle is one means of complying with this requirement. As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem. As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement (58 FR 11975). Under the amendment, 'vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities' are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non-integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. A 'vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities' is defined as vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat. Based on the information you provided, the customer's van would come within this definition. Therefore, if your client would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the 'make inoperative' prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";