ID: 2666y

Mr. William Shapiro
Volvo Cars of North America
Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter about the built-in child seat Volvo has designed for the center rear seating position. The built-in seat uses the vehicle's lap-shoulder safety belt to restrain the child. I regret the delay in responding.

You indicated in a telephone conversation that Volvo is considering designing the seat solely for children who weigh more than 50 pounds. Such a seat is not subject to the requirements of Standard 213 because the seat is not a "child restraint" as that term is defined in the standard. Paragraph S4 of Standard 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds."

The agency would determine whether your built-in seat is designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds by considering available indications of the manufacturer's design intent, e.g., the physical suitability of the seat for use by children who weigh less than 50 pounds, and the manner in which the seat is labeled and marketed. The agency would look to see whether the seat is clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by the system. We would also consider any indications in Volvo's marketing efforts and point of sale materials regarding the size and age of child that the seat is designed to restrain. Finally, we would consider any size and age information included in the vehicle's owner manual.

You also indicated Volvo may consider designating the seat as suitable for children weighing more than 40 pounds. If the seat were so designated, it would no longer be a seat designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds, and therefore be a child restraint system subject to Standard 213.

You ask whether, if Standard 213 applies to your seat, the standard permits such a seat. You state that the seat would meet the labeling and performance requirements of the standard. You believe that Standard 213 permits the seat because the final rule that amended 213 to set requirements directly applicable to built-in seats (53 FR 1783; January 22, 1988) said that paragraph S5.4.3.3 of the standard allows child restraint systems other than a 5-point harness system.

You are correct that the standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Paragraph S5.4.3.3 provides, in part, that "each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 (i.e., provide upper and lower torso restraint, and a crotch restraint (for seats for children weighing over 20 pounds), of a specific form). The definition of a "child restraint system" specifically excludes the vehicle's lap/shoulder belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language of S5.4.3.3, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems applies only to seats that have belts, and not to a seat such as yours that uses the vehicle's belt system.

Please note that Standard 213 sets limits on knee excursion for built-in seats (S5.1.3.1(b)). Thus, although your seat is not required to have a crotch strap, the seat must be designed to prevent a child from sliding excessively forward and down, legs first ("submarining").

The agency would like to emphasize its concern that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the lap belt should be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis of a child, the area of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. We cannot determine from your drawing whether the vehicle lap belt would be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. The instructions for the proper use of the built-in seat that are required by S5.6.2 of the standard should inform users how to properly adjust the belt system, so to avoid submarining and imposing impact loads to the child's abdomen.

The agency is also concerned that the sitting height of some children who may occupy the seat might not be high enough for the shoulder belt to be properly positioned when attached. Instead, the belt might pass in front of the child's neck or face. For those cases, if no other option is available, NHTSA believes that the shoulder belt should be placed behind the child's back. We recommend that you include information in the printed instructions about such adjusting of the shoulder belt for small children. As a reminder, NHTSA will use these adjustment instructions per S6.1.2.3.1 to position the three year old dummy in the seat if the agency tests the seat in its compliance program.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:213 d:9/l4/90

ID: nht79-4.5

DATE: 10/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the proper "designated seating capacity" for three hypothetical seat designs. You ask whether each of the designs would be permitted to have only two "designated seating positions."

The amended definition of "designated seating position" provides, in part, that any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating. Your three hypothetical designs are derived from a basic seat design having 52 inches of hip room (Figure 1 in your letter). This basic design would be required to have three designated seating positions since it has greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless the center position cannot be used because of some obstruction or other impediment. You ask whether the agency would consider the three hypothetical designs illustrated in your letter to adequately establish impediments to use of the center position.

Your "Figure 2" illustrates an unpadded depression at the center position of the bench seat. Since this center depression is unpadded, 3.1 inches deep and 6.7 inches wide, it is the agency's opinion that the center position lacks an essential attribute of a seating position and would not likely be used for seating (even though there might be some unorthodox use of the position from time to time). If a seat of this design is equipped with seat belt assemblies, location of assembly hardware in the center depression would further clarify that the area is not a seating position. It must be emphasized, however, that designs of this type would be required to have three designated seating positions if the depth and width of the depression is so minimal that a person could easily straddle the depression and use the center position. Also, stiffness of seat belt assembly hardware located in the center depression becomes a more determinative factor the more narrow the width of such a depression.

The seat design illustrated in "Figure 3" of your letter includes a "partition pipe" at the center of the seat cushion. Whether such a design would preclude the use of the center position would depend greatly on the physical dimensions and characteristics of the "pipe" that is used and whether it is removable. If the "pipe" were made of soft, pliable padding similar to the other portions of the seat, for example, the "pipe" might not be sufficient to discourage use of the center position. Since your letter provides no information on the nature of the "partition pipe" that is illustrated, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design.

In "Figure 4," there is a padded "swelling" in the center seat position. Although the Figure specifies a height of 3.9 inches at the front of the "swelling," it appears that the "swelling" slants down toward the seat back so that it is only about one-half inch high where it joins the seat back. The illustration also does not describe whether the "swelling" is made of soft padding or of some rigid material. Without this information, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design. I would point out, however, that if the "swelling" is made of soft, flexible padding, it would not likely discour age use of the center position. In fact, if as it appears the "swelling" slants down to the seat back to create a "saddle effect," young children might be encouraged to use this center position.

To summarize, it is the agency's opinion that "Figure 2" in your letter illustrates a seat design that could qualify as having two designated seating positions. Regarding Figures 3 and 4, your letter did not include sufficient information for the agency to provide an opinion. On the basis of the information that was provided, however, I would say that these two designs are very dubious and do not indicate an adequate attempt on the part of the manufacturer to clarify that the center position is not to be used. It does not behoove a manufacturer to attempt to come narrowly within the meaning of the amended definition of "designated seating position." It would be much wiser to make sure that there is no question that the center position is not to be used. In the design illustrated in your "Figure 4," for example, you could easily design the "swelling" to be 4 or more inches tall from front to rear and made of a rigid material, and there would be no question concerning your compliance.

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

August 13, 1979

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to ask you for your interpretations concerning FMVSS "Designated Seating Position". Final Rule, issued on April 19, 1979 in the Federal Register.

At the NHTSA/Industry meeting in June, NHTSA said that if manufacturers have close questions as to whether or not there must be two or three designated seating positions in their particular configuration of the vehicle and seat, they may send NHTSA their letter concerning this matter. Therefore, we would like to as (Illegible Word) your interpretations as to whether there may be able to be only two designated seating positions in the seat configurations of our Questions (a), (b) and (c), which are derived from the basic seat (shown in Figure 1). Because we need to start designing our 1981 model seats, your prompt answers will be appreciated. Please treat our material as confidential.

Request withdrawn 8/31/79

Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Safety

ENC.

cc: HUGH OATES. RALPH HITCHCOCK; GUY HUNTER

Questions

Do you consider the following seat configurations (a) (b) and (c) to be two designated seating positions which are derived from the basic seat (as shown in Figure 1)?

Figure 1

Note: There is a hard board covered with vinyl-chloride leather on the bottom of the depression with a 3.1 inch depth at the center of the seat cushion.

(Graphics omitted)

Note: There is a partition pipe at the center of the seat cushion.

Figure 3

Note: At the center of the seat cushion, there is a 3.9 inch swelling.

Figure 4

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-3.88

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rembert Ryals

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 from R. Ryals to S. Krapzke (OCC 5063); Also attached to letter dated 9-12-79 from F. Berndt (signature by S.P. Wood) to F. Pepe (Std. 209)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff in which you asked for an interpretation of tbe requirements of Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.208 and S571.209, respectively). Specif ically, you asked whether manufacturers were required to install a lap belt at seating positions equipped with automatic belts certified as complying with the occupant protection requirements in Standard No. 208. Your letter indicated that you were part icularly interested in the requirements that applied to 1980 model year cars. The answer to your question is no.

S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating posit ions, safety belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that, those positi ons comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a safety belt at every seating position, h ave automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. All cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be certified as complying with Option 1.

However, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 contains an important proviso. This provides that an automatic belt system may be used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option set forth in S4.1.2 and in place of any safety belt system that would othe rwise be required by that option.

I have enclosed a copy of the December 14, 1971 rule (36 FR 23725) that added the current version of S4.5.3 to Standard No. 208.

In telephone conversations with you, Mr. Kratzke has explained that there is no requirement in the Federal safety standards that seating positions equipped with automatic belts include a lap belt either as part of the automatic belt or as a separate manu al belt. Your letter indicates that you believe that two regulatory provisions appear to require a lap belt in 1980 Volkswagens at seating positions equipped with an automatic shoulder belt and knee bolsters.

First, you suggested that Option I (S4.1.2.1) of Standard No. 208 requires automobiles to meet lateral and rollover crash protection requirements, in addition to providing automatic protection in frontal crashes. This is an erroneous reading of S4.1.2.1 (c). Manufacturers have the cboice of certifying compliance with the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements (S4.1.2.1(c)(1)) or of providing manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that the vehicle meets the protecti on requirement with a test dummy protected by both tbe safety belt and the automatic protection system (S4.1.2.1(c)(2)). When this latter option is chosen, the vehicle manufacturer could use the automatic safety belt in place of the specified manual saf ety belt, in accordance with the provisions of S4.5.3. Hence, a manufacturer could certify compliance with Option I without providing a manual lap belt at seating positions equipped with an automatic shoulder belt and knee bolsters.

It is not clear, however, that Volkswagen chose to certify that its cars complied with Option I in Standard No. 208. In a January 30, 1974 notice (39 FR 3834; copy enclosed), NHTSA indicated its understanding that the Volkswagen automatic belts were cer tified as complying with Option 2. In that notice, the agency stated that S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 "permits the use of the Volkswagen passive belt system to meet the perpendicular impact protection requirements of option two and to replace the require d seat belt assemblies." If Volkswagen certified its vehicles as complying with Option 2, the requirements of Option 1 would not be relevant.

Second, you noted that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CPR S571.209) specifies that a seat belt assembly "shall provide pelvic restraint (i.e., a lap belt) whether or not upper torso restraint is provided, ..." You suggested that t he Volkswagen belt system without a lap belt does not appear to comply with this requirement of Standard No. 209.

As Mr. Kratzke explained to you in your telephone conversation, the applicability of Standard No. 209 to crash-tested automatic belts is addressed in S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208. That provision in Standard No. 208 provides that automatic belts that are not required to meet the crash protection requirements shall conform to the webbing, attachment hardware, and assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The agency explained this provision as follows in the 1971 notice that added this langu age to Standard No. 208, "On reconsideration, the NHTSA has decided tbat relief from Standard No. 209 should be afforded if a passive belt is capable of meeting the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 in a frontal perpendicular impact and amen ds S4.5.3 accordingly." 36 FR 23725; December 14, 1971. Thus, automatic belts that are certified as complying with the occupant crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are not generally subject to the requirements of Standard No. 209.

In a September 12, 1979 letter from this office to Mr. Frank Pepe (copy enclosed), NHTSA explained that automatic belts must meet the adjustment requirements of S7.1 of Standard No. 208 and those parts of Standard No.

209 that are incorporated by reference in S7.1 of Standard No. 208. That letter also noted that automatic belts installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements are exempted from all other requirements of

Standard No. 209 by virtue of S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208. Since S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is not incorporated by reference in S7.1 of Standard No. 208, seating positions equipped with automatic belts that are certified as complying with the frontal crash protection requirements are not required to provide lap belts either as part of the automatic belt or as a separate manual belt.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.6

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William Shapiro -- Volvo Cars of North America

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-10-89 from W. Shapiro to S.P. Wood (OCC 3848); Also attached to drawing of child booster seat (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the built-in child seat Volvo has designed for the center rear seating position. The built-in seat uses the vehicle's lap-shoulder safety belt to restrain the child. I regret the delay in responding.

You indicated in a telephone conversation that Volvo is considering designing the seat solely for children who weigh more than 50 pounds. Such a seat is not subject to the requirements of standard 213 because the seat is not a "child restraint" as that t erm is defined in the standard. Paragraph S4 of Standard 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 poun ds."

The agency would determine whether your built-in seat is designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds by considering available indications of the manufacturer's design intent, e.g., the physical suitability of the seat for use by children wh o weigh less than 50 pounds, and the manner in which the seat is labeled and marketed. The agency would look to see whether the seat is clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by the system. We woul d also consider any indications in Volvo's marketing efforts and point of sale materials regarding the size and age of child that the seat is designed to restrain. Finally, we would consider any size and age information included in the vehicle's owner m anual.

You also indicated Volvo may consider designating the seat as suitable for children weighing more than 40 pounds. If the seat were so designated, it would no longer be a seat designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds, and therefore be a child restraint system subject to Standard 213.

You ask whether, if Standard 213 applies to your seat, the standard permits such a seat. You state that the seat would meet the labeling and performance requirements of the standard. You believe that Standard 213 permits the seat because the final rule that amended 213 to set requirements directly applicable to built-in seats (53 FR 1783; January 22, 1988) said that paragraph S5.4.3.3 of the standard allows child restraint systems other than a 5-point harness system.

You are correct that the standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Paragraph S5.4.3.3 provides, in part, that "each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with the specif ic requirements of S5.4.3.3 (i.e.,

provide upper and lower torso restraint, and a crotch restraint (for seats for children weighing over 20 pounds), of a specific form). The definition of a "child restraint system" specifically excludes the vehicle's lap/shoulder belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language of S5.4.3.3, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems applies only to seats that have belts, and not to a seat such as yours that uses the vehicle's belt system.

Please note that Standard 213 sets limits on knee excursion for built-in seats (S5.1.3.1(b)). Thus, although your seat is not required to have a crotch strap, the seat must be designed to prevent a child from sliding excessively forward and down, legs f irst ("submarining").

The agency would like to emphasize its concern that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the lap belt should be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vul nerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis of a child, the area of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. We cannot determine from your drawing whether the vehicle lap belt would be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. The instructions for the proper use of the built-in seat that are required by S3.6.2 of the standard should inform users how to properly adjust the belt system, so to avoid submarining and imposing impact loads to the child's abdomen.

The agency is also concerned that the sitting height of some children who may occupy the seat might not be high enough for the shoulder belt to be properly positioned when attached. Instead, the belt might pass in front of the child's neck or face. For those cases, if no other option is available, NHTSA believes that the shoulder belt should be placed behind the child's back. We recommend that you include information in the printed instructions about such adjusting of the shoulder belt for small chil dren. As a reminder, NHTSA will use these adjustment instructions per S6.1.2.3.1 to position the three year old dummy in the seat if the agency tests the seat in its compliance program.

ID: 77-5.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/77

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

TO: Britax (Wingard) Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 24, 1977, asking whether Federal safety standards permit passive safety belts to be equipped with conventional buckles for emergency release.

In answer to your question, Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, not only permits buckles on passive belt systems, it requires them. Under paragraphs S4.5.3.3 and S7.2 of the standard, passive seat belt assemblies are required to have a latch mechanism that releases the restraints. The release is required to be at a single point by pushbutton action.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Britax (Wingard) Limited

OCTOBER 24, 1977

T. Herlihy, Office of Chief Counsel, N H T S A,

Docket 75/14 - Notice 10 - Occupant Restraint Systems

We are designing passive restraint systems with webbing restraint which incorporate in their construction a conventional buckle and tongue intended to be used under conditions requiring emergency release. The buckle assembly would be mounted adjacent to the door when used with a restraint for outboard front seat occupants.

Would you please confirm or otherwise whether the incorporation of such a device for the emergency release of a belt assembly to be applied without action by the occupant is acceptable within the terms of the safety standard, as this is at present interpreted.

T. V. BARLOW Senior Technical Officer

ID: nht94-4.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bruce Monnie -- Senior Designer, Advanced Design Associates

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8/5/94 FROM BRUCE MONNIE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 10253)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for a product you have developed to improve the securement of child safety seats. You stated that the product is a one-piece steel bracket which "is installed on the seatbelt of the vehicle, to prevent slippage between the lap and shoulder portions of the seatbelt and to tighten up slack in the lap portion of the seatbelt." You indicated that the product would be installed on a temporary basis and that it would be sold in the "aftermarket" to persons owning child restraint systems. You request an interpretation of whether Standards No. 209, 213, or any other standard would apply to your device.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. It appears from your description of the product that it would be a type of device that we call a "locking clip." A locking clip is a bracket into which a vehic le's lap and shoulder belt webbing is threaded. A locking clip tightens the webbing around a child safety seat and prevents the safety seat from moving easily. We have no safety standard that applies to locking clips. Standard 209 sets forth requiremen ts for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply. Standard 213 is our standard for child restraints. It applies to "any device except Type I or Type I I seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less" (S4 of Standard 213). Since your device would not itself restrain, seat or position a child, it would not be a child restr aint system. Therefore, Standard No. 213 would not apply to your product.

While no FMVSS applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. n1 In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be re sponsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

n1 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means tha t the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. I t appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its in stallation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system or the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that we have a concern about the possible misuse of your device. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensure that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. Your device attaches to the belt system, and will stay in place until the consumer removes it. Since it attaches to the belt system, it could affect the ability of the system to protect an adult occupant, or a child restrained without a child safety seat. We suggest that you provide clear instructions to the c onsumer to remove the device from the belt webbing when the belt system is used without a child restraint system.

In closing, I note for your information that NHTSA published a final rule in October 1993 requiring the safety belts in new motor vehicles to be capable of tightly securing child safety seats, without the necessity of the user's attaching any device, suc h as a locking clip, to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle. The rule applies to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1995. I have enclosed a copy of the rule.

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

ID: nht71-1.29

DATE: 08/01/71 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 23, 1971, in which you asked a question concerning the requirement in Standard No. 208 that the seat belt warning signals deactivate when the parking brake is applied.

Your question was whether the standard's requirement would be satisfied by a system in which the seat belt warning signals deactivate at the same point at which the parking brake warning light goes on, considering the fact that the warning light is generally set to go on at a point where the parking brake lever is partially extended but before the brake is actually engaged.

We would consider the standard's requirement to be satisfied by the system you describe. We agree that the presence of the parking brake warning light is a sufficient deterrent to driving the vehicle with the parking brake partially engaged.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 23, 1971

Lawrence R. Schneider Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Hwy, Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This is a request for clarification of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," Docket No. 69-7, Notice 10 (36FR12858).

Section 7.3.4(b) of the standard prohibits activation of the warning system when the parking brake is engaged on a vehicle that has a manual transmission. Monitors which detect whether or not the parking brake is engaged are necessary to meet this section. Therefore, for this purpose we intend to use a parking brake warning switch which actuates according to the position of the parking brake lever.

However, very often the parking brake lever position, where the parking brake begins to engage, is slightly different among cars because of adjustment, elongation of wire cables, and wear of brake shoes, etc. Therefore, the parking brake switch is adjusted so that the switch will be off at the bottom position of the parking brake lever, and it will come on when the lever is slightly pulled before the parking brake begins to engage. This adjustment is necessary to prevent the driver from unknowingly moving a car with a partially engaged parking brake.

The parking brake warning lamp could be on when the parking brake lever is not fully released and the brake itself is not engaged due to the adjustment or slack in this system, etc. In such cases, the seat belt warning system will not

2

actuate, regardless of the transmission gear selector position.

Our understanding is that if the parking brake warning lamp is on, it may be considered that the parking brake is engaged because no driver should attempt to move a vehicle when the parking brake warning lamp is activated. We, therefore, do believe this system would meet the requirement of section 7.3.4(b).

Is our interpretation correct? When considering this information, please take into account that we do not have much lead time due to the proximity of the effective date.

Your prompt consideration and response will be very much appreciated.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

Y. Kosaka Staff Engineer

cc: Mr. Hitchcock

ID: nht80-1.50

DATE: 04/14/80

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity of the rear seat in a 1981-model passenger car you plan to market. You state that the seat cushion and seat back of this rear seat are contoured to clearly indicate occupancy by only two persons, and that the seat has only 41.1 inches of hip room.

If the rear seat has only 41.1 inches of hip room, the agency must conclude that the seat could qualify as having only two seating positions, since this is substantially below the 50-inch caveat in the amended definition of "designated seating position." However, it appears from the photographs and diagrams enclosed in your letter that this rear seat effectively has almost 50 inches of hip room, if measured mid-way between the front and back of the seat cushion (49.2 inches according to the diagram). It is only by the strict measurement technique of SAE J1100a and the contour of the seat back that you obtain the 41.1-inch figure. Further, there appears to be 10 to 12 inches of well-padded seat cushion at the center position of the seat between the inboard ends of the two seat belt assemblies. This position could obviously be used by a vehicle occupant. Therefore, we strongly urge you to designate three seating positions in this vehicle design or to install a fixed armrest or some other obstruction so that the center position cannot be used. I am enclosing two recent letters of interpretation on this same subject which are pertinent to your inquiry and which emphasize the agency's positon concerning designs such as you describe in your letter.

Finally, I would like to point out that this response only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

ID: aiam2029

Dear Mr. Masada: This responds to Takata Kojyo's July 28, 1975, question whethe Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, or Standard No. 209,; Seat Belt Assemblies*, prohibits on a 'continuous loop' three-poin belt system the use of a clip between the outboard attachment point of the lap belt portion and the sliding buckle tongue which engages the inboard attachment hardware. The clip is used to prevent the sliding buckle tongue from falling to the floor when the belt system is retracted after use.; Standard No. 209 contains no provision which prohibits use of the clip Section S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion of seat belts 'by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor.' In continuous loop systems, the single retractor must meet this adjustment requirement as well as that for the upper torso portion. At this time, the NHTSA has interpreted S7.1.1 to permit the use of clips which restrict movement of the webbing, but a proposal is outstanding that would restrict the use of certain clips to seat belt assemblies that have 'an individually adjustable' lap belt. The language of that proposal is intended to strictly limit the use of clips which restrict webbing movement. In any case, Standard No. 208 does not at this time prevent use of the clip you describe.; It is noted that the clip could be misadjusted so that slack i introduced in the lap belt, permitting submarining in the event of a crash. This problem could be avoided by permanently attaching the clip at a low enough position so that the belt would be automatically adjustable even for a 50th percentile 6 year old child without possibility of misadjustment. This permanent location could presumably still be high enough on the belt to provide for convenient stowage of the belt tongue after use.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-4.32

DATE: 04/25/75

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

TO: Brougham Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 17, 1975 request for an explanation of the seat belt assembly installation requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, as they apply to motor homes with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds, and those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

The standard requires that motor homes with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds be equipped with "passive" crash protection of a certain level (S4.3.1) or a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at each designated seating position (S4.3.2).

Motor homes with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must be equipped with "passive" crach protection of a certain level (S4.2.1.1) or a Type 2 seat belt assembly at each outboard designated seating position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area, and a type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at each other designated seating position (S4.2.1.2).

At the front outboard designated seating position, you state that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer provides Type 1 seat belts. Unless the documentation, provided under Part 568 of our regulations (49 CFR Part 568), states that modification of the Type 1 seat belts is required to meet Standard No. 208, it appears that the vehicle windshield header is not within the head impact area and that Type 1 seat belts meet the requirement.

You point out that some manufacturers may not provide as many designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations in the vehicle. We evaluated the proportion of this problem recently because of the possibility that occupants were not being provided with enough Type 1 seat belts. An informal but comprehensive survey at a recent trade show indicated that the problem is extremely limited. If you have information that this practice is becoming more common, please provide this office with more specific identification of manufacturer and model line.

We do appreciate your efforts to provide your purchasers with a high level of crash protection.

SINCERELY,

BROUGHAM

March 17, 1975

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Brougham Industries, Inc. has been manufacturing Class C Motor Homes on chopped Van chassis with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less since 1970. In compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, part 571; S208 paragraphs S 4.2, S 4.2.1 and S 4.2.1.2, Brougham has been installing type 2 seat belts in the forward outside passenger and driver seats where windshield header contact is possible. Type 1 seat belts have been installed in the aft seats to bring the total seats suitable for occupancy while moving to advertised sleeping capacity of the vehicle i.e., 6 to 8. This costs Brougham approximately $ 80.00 to $ 100.00 per coach.

Our competitive surveys indicate Winnebago, Mobile- Traveler, Midas, Fleetwood, Open Road and the majority of the competition are using type 1 seat belts that come with the forward control truck chassis for the driver and forward passenger. Aft passenger seat belt installations vary from all seats equipped with type 1 seat belts to all seats placard against use while the vehicle is in motion.

Brougham desires to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the Safety Standards, but this added $ 80.00 to $ 100.00 cost per vehicle places the company at a disadvantage in the market place.

Please give me an official interpretation of this regulation as it applies to motor homes of 10,000 pounds and less and over 10,000 pounds so that I can incorporate the correct design criteria in our product.

John S. Knaur, Jr. Corporate Engineer

cc: CARLOS FLORES -- SMALL BUSINESS ADMIN.