ID: aiam0295

Dear Mr. Kern: This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1971, concernin certification of child seating systems. Your letter asks whether the statement, 'This (child seating system) conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above,' or alternatively the symbol 'DOT,' may be used to certify that a child seating system complies with Standard No. 213. You also ask whether the certification statement may be placed on the label required on the child seat pursuant to S4.1 of the standard.; The statement that you submit is an adequate certification statement Furthermore, this statement or a similar statement may be placed on the label required pursuant to S4.1 of the standard, as the certification would therefore be 'in the form of a label or tag' on the item of motor vehicle equipment as specified in section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1403).; With reference to use of the symbol 'DOT' for certifying child seatin systems, while this symbol is presently used by manufacturers to certify other items of motor vehicle equipment, its use as such is only pursuant to specific provisions of the standards. We cannot approve of its use for child seating systems without prior rulemaking.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3960

Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1985, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding requirements for the center high- mounted stop lamp.; You reference an agency letter of July 30, 1980, to Volkswagen o America in which the Chief Counsel concluded that placement of the stop lamps and taillamps on the deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance requiring notification and remedy. You have asked, in essence, how this relates to Standard No. 108's present allowance of a center high- mounted stop lamp mounted on a vehicle's decklid, hatch, or tailgate.; The assumption underlying the agency's 1980 letter was that a defec could exist if all a vehicle's stop lamps and taillamps were mounted on the decklid, where their signals could be unobserved or obscured if the lid were in any position other than closed. The center high-mount stop lamp, on the other hand, while an item of required equipment, is nevertheless a supplementary stop lamp. Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamps remaining on the body.; You have asked that we also discuss the implications of a stop lamp an taillamp constructed so that a portion is fixed to the body of the vehicle adjacent to the decklid opening and the remaining portion is mounted on the outboard area of the decklid.; Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its norma driving position, that is to say, with the tailgate, hatch, or decklid closed. However, in order to obviate any possibility of the existence of a safety-related defect, we recommend that the portion of the lamp that is mounted on the body itself comply with the minimum requirements of Standard No. 108 for a single compartment stop lamp or taillamp.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2655

Dear Mr. Kelley: This is in response to your letter of August 8, 1977, concerning th language in Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) stating that 'to the maximum extent practicable, a bumper standard promulgated by the Secretary shall not preclude the attachment of detachable hitches.' In your letter you refer to correspondence dated May 5, 1976, on the same subject. I regret that due to an administrative oversight that letter was not answered.; In your letter you expressed your opinion that Congress intended i Title I to place an affirmative obligation on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to ensure that vehicles are produced with bumpers that can accommodate detachable bumper hitches. The main support offered for your position is a comment by Congressman William Springer made at the time the conference bill was presented to the full House of Representatives. Mr. Springer's statement was that 'bumpers should be practicable and allow for the use of bumper hitches, that is, the hitches that you use to hook something else behind the automobile.' It appears that you have interpreted Mr. Springer's statement as indicating an intent that the bumper standard ultimately promulgated require that bumpers be designed to accommodate detachable bumper hitches.; Having reviewed the legislative history of Title I, I must disagre with your position. Congress was explicit in its direction that the agency express any bumper standard in minimum performance terms so as to allow the industry to make full use of its technological resources in devising a means of complying with the requirements. This mandate has been fulfilled by the agency. Part 581, *Bumper Standard*, provides that a vehicle be capable of meeting the specified damage criteria when involved in 5 mph impacts with a pendulum test device and a fixed barrier. Manufacturers are free to satisfy that performance level in whatever manner they choose. That manufacturing freedom would be compromised were the agency to require the production of vehicles with bumper systems suitable for detachable bumper hitches. Such a result would clearly be contrary to Congress' Title I directive.; With regard to the contracts with Calspan and Minicars, the vehicle developed under those programs are not required by law to satisfy a particular set of safety criteria. Under those contracts vehicles that meet high levels of safety, damage-resistibility, and fuel economy are to be developed. Accommodation of detachable bumper hitches is not a factor in any of those areas of concentration.; I want to assure you that the NHTSA shares your interest in providin the public with a means to tow. Our actions under Title I preserve the ability of manufacturers to produce bumper systems that continue to satisfy that public need.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook

ID: 20872nhf

Mr. Robert J. Carlson
Warranty Specialist
City of Everett Transportation Services
Motor Vehicle Division
3200 Cedar Street
Everett, WA 98201-4599

Dear Mr. Carlson:

This responds to your letter requesting guidance as to whether you may obtain authorization to relocate or exchange the original manufacturer's driver's seat in your Ford/El Dorado National ParaTransit Buses, and as to whether you may add a driver's side air bag on-off switch. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that these Paratransit vans are used to transport people with disabilities, some of whom are seated in wheelchairs. You explain that your drivers must often assist the passengers with entering and exiting the van and with fastening their seatbelts. Your drivers generally exit to the right of the driver's seat due to concerns with roadside traffic. You explain that your drivers have experienced difficulty entering and exiting the vehicle because of the lack of room between the seat and engine component cover. Your drivers have complained of back, shoulder and arm pain. You also explain that an ergonomist has examined the vehicles and determined that the seats could cause work-related claims. You state that your drivers have threatened to take union and legal action against the City, Ford, and El Dorado National (the manufacturer of the paratransit buses). You have had three Ford seat bases and two seat back frames fail since March 1999. You believe that these seat base and seat back frame failures are caused by the frequent side to side movement of the drivers entering and exiting the vehicles. You explain that you did not experience these problems with your old paratransit buses which were equipped with heavy-duty air ride seats.

You explain that you have investigated the possibility of either moving the existing seat back four inches or installing heavy-duty air ride seats. You state that Ford Motor Company has told you that any change to the driver's seat will void the vehicle's certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and release Ford of any safety or product liability. Specifically, you ask whether you may replace the original manufacturer's seats or move the existing seats back several inches, or add a driver's side air bag on-off switch. Your question is addressed below.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale.

After the first sale of the vehicle, 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 standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation. Thus, a dealer or repair business could relocate or exchange the original manufacturer's driver's seat so long as such action did not negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The make inoperative prohibition does not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Therefore, it does not apply to any of the modifications you may perform to the vehicles you own and use for paratransit. Thus, you may modify the vehicle regardless of the effect on compliance with FMVSSs. You may, however, wish to consult a private attorney concerning any state law implications associated with modifying your vehicles, including potential liability implications, and whether such modifications will void your warranty with Ford.

We note that the purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure that current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Therefore, we encourage you not to unnecessarily compromise the safety of the vehicles you modify. Finally, if you sell the vehicles, we urge you to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider repositioning the seat and reinstalling any removed safety equipment if appropriate.

We are unsure why you would want to add a driver's side air bag on-off switch in the event that you relocated the driver seat rearward. Air bags create risks to persons who are too close to the air bag at the time of deployment. Relocation of the driver seat rearward would therefore appear to make it less likely, rather than more likely, that a person would be at risk from the air bag. It is possible, however, that relocation of the seat could adversely affect the air bag sensing system. Installing an air bag on-off switch would not resolve such a problem. We would urge you to consult with Ford about the potential consequences of relocating the seat and what actions could be taken to minimize any adverse safety consequences.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/7/00

ID: aiam4150

Dear Mr. Black: Thank you for your letter of March 24, 1986, to former Chief Counse Jeffrey R. Miller about the requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You explained that Alfa Romeo intends to install automatic safety belts in its two seat convertible model and asked how the requirements of Standard No. 208 apply to such an automatic crash protection. In essence, all of your questions concern whether an automatic belt system can be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt system under 4.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. The answer is yes, and automatic safety belt can be used to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) and can also be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2).; As provided in S4.5.3 of the standard, an automatic safety belt syste can be 'used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat assembly otherwise required by that option.' Thus, an automatic safety belt can be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 belt system under S4.1.2.1(c)(2). Therefore, an Alfa Romeo convertible equipped with an automatic safety belt would not be subjected to the lateral crash test of S5.2 or the dynamic rollover test of S5.3.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3326

Dear Mr. O'Connor: This responds to your letter of July 2, 1980, requesting informatio regarding manufacturing standards for front bucket seats on passenger cars. Specifically, you ask if there are any standards that were applicable to 1969-model Mustangs, particularly with respect to the pivot pin brackets on seats in these vehicles.; The initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were issued in 196 and became effective January 1, 1968. Included in these initial standards was Standard No. 207, *Anchorages of Seats--Passenger Cars* (copy enclosed). Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements in terms of overall seat strength. You will note that there are no requirements for specific components of the seat, however, such as pivot pin brackets. The Federal safety standards are generally specified in terms of performance requirements which allow manufacturers to use any designs they choose. If the Mustang with which you are concerned was manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, the manufacturer would have had to certify that the vehicle was in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 207.; I am also enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 207 as it i currently written, since the standard has been amended several times since it was first issued. I hope you will find this information helpful.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: TRANZ ACC Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 30 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Mike Grant TRANZ ACC Inc. 21807 Plummer Street Chatsworth, California 91311

Dear Mr. Grant:

This responds to your February 25, 1983, letter asking whether a child seat that you would like to import would comply with Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Your child seat attaches to a vehicle by use of several of its own anchorage straps which are attached to existing vehicle belt anchorages or by drilling new anchorages. The seat does not use the existing car seat belt system.

Paragraph S5.3.2 of the standard states: "When installed on a vehicle seat, each child restraint system, other than child harnesses, shall be capable of being restrained against forward movement solely by means of a Type I seat belt assembly (defined in S571.209) that meets Standard No. 208 (S571.208), or by means of a Type I seat belt assembly plus one additional anchorage strap that is supplied with the system and conforms to S5.4" Since your system has its own harnesses and does not utilize the existing car seat belt system (Type I seat belt), it would not comply with this portion of the standard.

The agency requires child seats to be attachable by use of the existing car seat system for ease of installation and to assist in proper installation and usage. The agency determined in rulemaking that to permit other systems that were more complex and that require the proper attachment of several harness straps would not be in the interest of safety, since it would likely result in improper child seat installation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 25, 1983

MR. FRANK BERNDT Chief Council U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 4O0 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

I represent an accessory company who are interested in importing a child seat from England. The seat has passed the British and Dutch safety tests which are probably the most rigorous of its kind in Europe.

However, we think the method of attaching the seat is not covered by your current safety regulations. Due to the complex nature of your regulations I find it difficult to determine whether or not the seat complies with them, and I would appreciate your help and advice in this matter.

I have written to Barbara Kelleher of Arvin Calspan Corp. who advised me to write to you and explain our situation. We both agree that as far as safety standards are concerned the seat easily meets the requirments of Calspan's sled tests.

I am eager to have the seat tested and approved but this would seem little purpose until I receive a decision from your department as to the suitability of our method of attaching the child safety seat.

Please find enclosed fitting instructions and information about the seat and if you require any further information or a sample seat please don't hesitate to contact me.

Your earliest attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Yours Sincerely

Mike Grant

ID: aiam4479

"Dear Mr. Haenchen: This is in response to your letter regardin Volkswagen's (VW) plan to introduce ceramic dots on selected areas of passenger motor vehicle windows in order to reduce energy transmission on the car's glazing. I sincerely apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you suggested that one possible means of reducing energy transmission into the interior of cars would be to apply extensive tinting or ceramic dots over extended areas of the glazing on those cars. You provided, in Attachments I and II of your letter, diagrams of the proposed areas of the glazing that would be shaded under your proposal, which included shading at the top (in the shade band areas) of the windshield as well as at the bottom. Shading on side and rear glazing was also shown. You offer a rationale that all of these areas may have less than 70% light transmissibility, and still comply with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). Your rationale begins with the observation that Section 4.2 of ANS Z26.1 has specifications for items 1 and 2 glazing which refer to footnotes 1 and 3 when specifying Test 2 - Light Transmittance. Those footnotes allow areas of the glazing to have less than 70% light transmittance if the areas are not within the 'levels required for driving visibility.' These footnotes are referring mainly to shade bands on the upper edge of the windshield. You also referred to SAE J100 (passenger car glazing shade bands), which defines a 'glazing shade band' as 'an area of the vehicle glazing through which light transmission is less than required for use at levels requisite for driving visibility by ANS Z26.1.' SAE J100 recommends shade bands only on the upper edge of the glazing. However, you implied that this recommended practice does not necessarily result from a determination that all other portions of the glazing are at 'levels required for driving visibility,' the limitation set forth in Standard No. 205. Instead, your letter set forth a suggested definition of the term 'levels required for driving visibility.' In a February 15, 1974 letter from this agency to Mr. George Nield, NHTSA said, 'We consider the word 'levels' in Standard 205 to mean vertical heights in relation to the driver's eyes.' You noted that EEC Directive 77/649 specifies levels requisite for driving visibility in the driver's 180 degree forward direct field of vision, and that Section 5.1.3 of this Directive specifies the boundaries for the driver's forward direct field of vision. You stated that this Directive provides guidelines for determining which areas of the glazing are 'requisite for driving visibility.' You stated that VW has tested its proposed shade bands around the lower edge and vertical sides of the glazing, as shown in Attachments I and II of your letter, according to the specifications of Directive 77/649 and concluded that 'ceramic dots in the area defined in the EEC directive very well cover the vertical heights in relation to even small drivers' eyes, which are 'requisite for driving visibility'.' Based on this information, you asked the agency whether your proposal to include tinted bands or ceramic dots with light transmittance of less than 70 percent in areas beyond the shade band of the windshield would comply with Standard No. 205. The answer to your question is no. We agree with your observation that neither Standard No. 205 nor ANS Z26 explicitly states how one determines whether or not an area is 'requisite for driving visibility.' Our February 15, 1974 letter explained that one would make such a determination by considering the vertical height of the glazing in relation to the driver's eyes. We subsequently considered this subject again in a June 19, 1987 letter to a manufacturer whose identity was kept confidential. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for your information. As you will see, we concluded in this letter that the particular proposed head-up display described in the manufacturer's letter would not be located in an area of the windshield that was 'requisite for driving visibility,' and therefore vehicles equipped with this head-up display would not appear to violate Standard No. 205. This conclusion was based on the fact that the display would not obstruct the driver's forward visibility any more than typical hood designs or unretracted head lamps. Applying this reasoning to your plans to tint a band along the bottom of the windshield, it appears that this area is 'requisite for driving visibility,' except for that portion through which the shortest driver sees the hood or other parts of the vehicle. We again conclude that it is not requisite for driving visibility that the driver see the hood of the vehicle he or she is driving. You also asked about putting shade bands on the lower edges of all side windows and over most of the surface area of the rear window in the car. These areas cover parts of the glazing through which the driver could see not just parts of the car being driven, but also the road and traffic to the side and rear of the car. In many of our previous interpretations, we have said that all windows in passenger cars are requisite for driving visibility and must, therefore, meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement in Test 2 of ANS Z26. See, for example, the enclosed letters of April 4, 1985 to Mr. Armond Carderelli and of August 4, 1983 to Ms. Mary Ruth Harsha. This position was taken after considering the number of potential driving situations in which the entire surface area of any of these windows may be needed to allow the driver to analyze the traffic situation and react to it properly and promptly. As shown by our June 19, 1987 letter to the unnamed manufacturer, it is possible for a party to rebut this presumption. To do so, however, the party must present clear and convincing evidence to show that the area of the window surface in question is at a level that would never enhance driver visibility. We do not believe your letter shows this for the side and rear window area surfaces shown in Attachments I and II. Your letter attempts to show that the extended shade bands on the side and rear windows are at levels of the glazing that are not requisite for driving visibility by relying primarily on a European Economic Community Directive. We note that this Directive has not been referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205. Whatever the ultimate value of this Directive may prove to be in determining what levels on windows are requisite for driving visibility, the agency has not analyzed the recommendations of the EEC directive in detail. Thus, we are not in a position to comment on whether the guidelines established in this Directive are sufficient for defining levels which are requisite for driving visibility, within the meaning of Standard No. 205. Additionally, another source of information that is not referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205 appears to disagree with the EEC directive. This is the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J100, which indicates that the only levels of windows that are known not to be requisite for driving visibility are bands along the upper edge of the windshield. SAE J100 suggests that the areas along the side and rear window you propose to tint darkly may be at levels requisite for driving visibility. As noted above, NHTSA has not yet evaluated this situation. However, the SAE recommendation suggests that it may not be as simple to determine the levels that are requisite for driving visibility as implied in your letter. Because of these uncertainties, we cannot conclude that the areas shown in Attachments I and II are not at levels requisite for driving visibility. Accordingly, the presumption that all of the window surfaces in this car are at levels requisite for driving visibility has not been rebutted. This means that if a vehicle has side and rear window portions that do not meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirements, as shown in your Attachments I and II, the vehicle would not comply with Standard No. 205. I would also like to respond to your assertion that, since your company could block the areas of the side and rear window in question with sheet metal, those areas must be interpreted as not being at 'levels requisite for driving visibility,' within the meaning of Standard No. 205. We have already considered and rejected this argument in a June 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Hisakazu Murakami (copy enclosed). In that letter, we said, 'While there currently are no requirements for the size of window openings, the agency must interpret Standard No. 205 to require window openings that are present to have complying glazing.' Although we have concluded that the areas on the side and rear windows are at levels requisite for driving visibility, we believe that it is appropriate to again re-examine the question of whether we should more precisely specify those areas of windows that are at 'levels requisite for driving visibility.' As we stated in the enclosed June 19, l987 letter, we plan to initiate a rulemaking action to address this issue, instead of continuing our case-by-case consideration of whether particular areas are at levels requisite for driving visibility. Again I apologize for the delay in this response. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam3093

Dear Mr. Pepe: This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirement applicable to automatic seat belts under Safety Standrd (sic) No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. Specifically, you ask for confirmation that all automatic belts must comply with the adjustment specifications of paragraph S7.1 of the standard.; Your understanding is correct. Automatic seat belts must meet th adjustment requirements of paragraph S7.1, and those parts of Safety Standard No. 209 incorporated by reference, whether or not they are required to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of paragraph S5.1 of the standard. Automatic belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements are excepted from the other parts of Safety Standard No. 209 by paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 16264.ogm

Mr. Gary Gawura
Program Manager
Track Corporation
1091 Centre Drive
Suite 210
Auburn Hills, MI 48236

Dear Mr. Gawura:

This responds to your letter concerning Standard No. 207, Seating Systems and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages as they apply to a seat design having an upper seat belt anchorage integrated into the seat and lower seat belt anchorages integrated into the adjuster. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask several questions regarding the proper test procedures for designs such as yours where the seat belt assembly anchorages are integrated into the seat rather than attached to the vehicle itself. Your letter contains a description and diagram of the current test procedure used by your company to test seats and seat belt anchorages. You indicate that in order to test the belt anchorages, a 3000 pound load is applied to the shoulder and the lap belts as specified in S5.2 of Standard No. 210. You also indicate that a "C.G. force at 20 times the weight of the seat is applied to the seatback and another C.G. force a t 20 times the weight of the pedestal is applied to the pedestal. These loads are held for ten (10) seconds."

The first question you ask is whether it is necessary, under your current test procedure as described above, to apply a load to the pedestal because, as a seat manufacturer, you are not certifying the attachment of the seat to the vehicle.

Depending on the standard involved, Federal motor vehicle safety standards may apply to a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, to a vehicle manufacturer or to both. S2 of Standard No. 209 specifies that the standard applies "to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. Therefore, the manufacturer of the vehicle is responsible for ensuring that the product meets the requirements of Standard No. 209. Given the fact that Standard No. 209 requires that the seat be installed in a vehicle when compliance testing is performed, it may not be possible for your company to perform such testing.

If, as your diagram indicates, the load being applied to the pedestal portion of the seat is intended to be the load which must be applied to cg₂, the center of gravity of the portion of the seat below the adjuster, as required by S5.1.1(c), a vehicle manufacturer would be required to ensure that the seat assembly met those requirements. As a seat manufacturer, your company is not obligated to do so.

You also ask that the agency comment on a proposed test procedure which your company believes would be more appropriate for testing seats with integrated seat belt anchorages for both lap and shoulder belts. As depicted in a diagram in your letter, this test applies a 3000 pound load to the lap and shoulder belt anchorages and a 20g load to the seat back and the seat "pan."

Your diagram refers to the load applied to the seat back as the upper CG load and the load applied to the seat "pan" as the lower CG load. As the seat "pan" in the seat depicted in your diagram is above the adjuster, the lower CG load shown in this diagram is presumably not the actual lower CG load but rather represents your nomenclature for the load that would be applied to cg₂ under S5.1.1(c).

The test that your company proposes clearly does not meet the current requirements of Standard No. 207. It is not clear from your letter if this test is performed with the seat attached to the vehicle. If it is not, the test would obviously not test the strength of the attachment of the seat to the vehicle. Secondly, it is not possible to evaluate your proposed test from the information contained in your letter. However, it appears that the test you propose would place greater loads on the seat frame and adjuster than the current requirements of S5.1.

Finally, you ask for a complete set of standards and rulings related to the testing of integrated adjusters and seats. The requirements for seat belt anchorages are found in S5 of Standard No. 210. As you are aware, the requirements for seats are found in S5.1 of Standard No. 207. Copies of these standards are enclosed as well as the accompanying test procedures.

NHTSA is currently studying possible changes to Standard No. 207 as well as an October 28, 1997 petition for rulemaking submitted by Bornemann Products, Inc. requesting that the agency initiate rulemaking to modify Standard No. 207 in regard to the testing of integrated seats.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:207
d.4/1/98