ID: 006239

ID: 86-6.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Denis H. Oyakawa

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 16, 1986, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations affect the proposed manufacture and sale of aftermarket safety belts by your client. As discussed below, your proposed plan would not violate either the Vehicle Safety Act or our regulations.

You explained that your client has supplied safety belts to a vehicle manufacturer for use both as an item of original equipment in a new vehicle and as item of replacement equipment for sale in the aftermarket. You said your client has recently been requested by the vehicle manufacturer to supply safety belts to be used as a replacement part for an older model vehicle which was exported to and marketed in the United States over 10 years age. You further explained that your client manufactured the original safety belts used in this older model vehicle, but is no longer equipped to readily manufacture the original safety belts.

Your client wishes to supply the vehicle manufacturer with a newer model safety belt. This newer safety belt has been designed to be installed as a replacement part in the older model vehicle and will fully comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. In addition, the safety belt is also designed so that when it is installed in a vehicle, the vehicle will continue to comply with all of the applicable requirements of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Finally, you said that the newer model safety belt will not render inoperative any other features of the vehicle necessary to meet any other applicable safety standards.

As you are already aware, your client's proposed safety belt would be required to comply with Standard No. 209. As you are also aware, installation of your client's safety belt by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair shop would be affected by the render inoperative provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. However, as stated in your letter, your client has determined that installation of the belt will not render inoperative any other safety features of the vehicle. There is another 108(a)(2)(A) related issue raised by your letter. This concerns whether an item of equipment installed in accordance with one version of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard can be replaced with an item of equipment that complies with a later version of that standard. The agency addressed this issue in a letter of July 7, 1975 to Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd. In that letter, the agency explained that it would not be a violation of section 108 as long as the vehicle or equipment complies with the safety standards in effect at the time of its manufacture or with the standards in effect at the time a particular system is replaced or altered, even if the new standards set less stringent performance requirements.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

GRAHAM & JAMES

September 16, 1986

Steven L. Oesch, Esq. U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Chief Counsel's Office

Re: FMVSS NO. 209: Sale of After-Market Seat Belts Our File Reference: TKTS 2.2

Dear Mr. Oesch:

We represent a Japanese manufacturer of motor vehicle seat belts and are writing to obtain confirmation that our client's proposal to manufacture replacement seat belts intended for ultimate distribution in the United States will not contravene the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") nor any regulations or policies of the Department of Transportation relating thereto.

As we discussed in our telephone conversation of September 8, 1986, our client for a number of years has supplied seat belts to a certain Japanese motor vehicle manufacturer (the "Vehicle Manufacturer") for use both as original, installed equipment on new motor vehicles as well as for distribution by the Vehicle Manufacturer as replacement parts in the after-sales market. Our client has recently been requested by the Vehicle Manufacturer to supply seat belts to be used as a replacement part for an older model vehicle which was exported to and marketed in the United States over 10 years ago. The Vehicle Manufacturer will distribute the belts in the U.S. after-sales market through its affiliated U.S. distributor and network of dealers.

Our client manufactured the original seat belts installed in this older model vehicle. Since the technology and equipment associated with manufacturing seat belts has continually been improved over the last 10 years, our client is no longer equipped to readily manufacture the original seat belts. The process of re-tooling its facilities to produce the original seat belt would be extremely costly to our client and would not take advantage of technological advances which have been made since the original belt was first manufactured.

Instead of manufacturing the original seat belt, our client proposes to supply the Vehicle Manufacturer with a newer model seat belt. The newer belt has been designed to be suitable for installation as a replacement part in the motor vehicle in question. Of course, the newer model belt will fully comply with the Seat Belt Assemblies Standard, as set forth in 49 CFR @ 571.209. In addition, the newer model belt is designed such that when installed, the vehicle will continue to satisfy the safety standards set forth in 49 CFR @ 571.208 and @ 571.210. Moreover, the newer model belt will not render inoperative other features of the vehicle necessary to meet any other applicable safety standards.

Our review of this issue indicates that our client's proposal will not violate the Safety Act or any applicable regulations thereunder. Since this plan is one of first impression for our client and involves a substantial commitment of resources, however, we respectfully request an opinion from your office confirming that the proposal outlined above will not violate the Safety Act or any other applicable laws or regulations of the United States which are under the regulatory authority of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Denis H. Oyakawa of GRAHAM & JAMES

ID: 21519.ogm

Mr. Charles E. Rodgers
Five Greenhouse Lane
Cincinnati, OH 45209

Dear Mr. Rodgers:

This responds to your letter requesting permission to move the seat back in your new vehicle. You explain that you have had two total knee replacements and in its present configuration, the seat of your car may not be moved back far enough to prevent your knees from contacting the dashboard. Due to your condition, the contact between your knees and the dashboard makes it painful for you to drive the vehicle. You ask if the vehicle may be modified so that the seat can be moved back to prevent your knees from contacting the dashboard.

This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the seat location in your vehicle.

We would like to explain that 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.

Currently, there is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses may modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, establishes performance requirements for seats and seat mounting systems. We cannot provide you with specific information regarding how the seat in your vehicle, if moved to a new location, will perform in a crash. We note, however, that the relocation of a seat may also have an impact on the performance of the vehicle's occupant protection system, including the seat belts, air bag and seat belt anchorages. You may wish to ask the manufacturer of your vehicle what effect relocating the seat may have on the seating system and the occupant protection system, which may influence your decisions regarding modification of the seat mounting system.

As noted above, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the existing seat belts to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. The vehicle manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. In addition, if the vehicle is sold, we urge you to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.5/9/00

ID: 8694r

Ron D. Belk, President
Kustom Fit
8990 Atlantic
Box 3004
South Gate, CA 90280

Dear Mr. Belk:

This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993, which is a follow-up to our May 6, 1993, letter in which we explained the self-certification process, "render inoperative," and "due care." You include information from tests you have done to determine whether seats you manufacture can be installed in vehicles that must comply with requirements for dynamically tested manual belts in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes.

You have experienced difficulties because of variability in belt pay-out ranging from 2.25 inches to 4.9 inches and asked whether Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209) allows this much variability. It is unclear from the information you provided what is causing the belt pay-out you are experiencing. I note that S4.3(i) of Standard No. 209 limits the amount of webbing which can extend from an automatic-locking retractor prior to the retractor locking. A similar requirement for webbing-sensitive emergency-locking retractors is included in S4.3(j). Section 4.6 of Standard No. 209 excepts dynamically tested manual belts from the requirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209, however, these belts must still comply with S4.3. The test for compliance with sections S4.3(i) and S4.3(j) are different from the tests you have been performing. Therefore, your tests would not indicate whether the seat belt assembly complies with these requirements of Standard No. 209.

You also asked for further advice on how to reassure your customers that vehicles will comply with Standard No. 208 with your seat installed. It is possible that you may not be able to do this. As explained in our previous letter, Standard No. 208 is applicable to vehicles and not to individual items of equipment (except for pressure devices and explosive devices used in air bags). Therefore, you, as the seat manufacturer, would have no certification responsibilities under Standard No. 208. The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify compliance with Standard No. 208. This is because compliance with Standard No. 208 is dependent on a variety of factors, including the seat, the seat belts, and the vehicle interior. Because you manufacture only the seat, you cannot control the other factors, and, therefore, probably cannot provide your clients with all the information they need in order to certify their vehicles compliance with Standard No. 208. However, you should be able to provide them with information on your seats that they can use to help determine if their vehicles comply with Standard No. 208.

Finally, you asked whether NHTSA would impose liability on you or the seat belt manufacturer if we discovered an apparent non-compliance with Standard No. 208. Because Standard No. 208 applies to the vehicle, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) imposes liability for non-compliance on the vehicle manufacturer, not the seat or seat belt manufacturer. However, state law may allow the vehicle manufacturer to recover damages from the manufacturer of either the seat or the seat belt.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208#209 d:8/16/93

ID: nht93-6.14

DATE: August 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ron D. Belk -- President, Kustom Fit

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/17/93 from Ron D. Belk to John Womack (OCC 8694)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993, which is a follow-up to our May 6, 1993, letter in which we explained the self-certification process, "render inoperative," and "due care." You include information from tests you have done to determine whether seats you manufacture can be installed in vehicles that must comply with requirements for dynamically tested manual belts in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes.

You have experienced difficulties because of variability in belt pay-out ranging from 2.25 inches to 4.9 inches and asked whether Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209) allows this much variability. It is unclear from the information you provided what is causing the belt pay-out you are experiencing. I note that S4.3(i) of Standard No. 209 limits the amount of webbing which can extend from an automatic-locking retractor prior to the retractor locking. A similar requirement for webbing-sensitive emergency-locking retractors is included in S4.3(j). Section 4.6 of Standard No. 209 excepts dynamically tested manual belts from the requirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209, however, these belts must still comply with S4.3. The test for compliance with sections S4.3 (i) and S4.3 (j) are different from the tests you have been performing. Therefore, your tests would not indicate whether the seat belt assembly complies with these requirements of Standard No. 209.

You also asked for further advice on how to reassure your customers that vehicles will comply with Standard No. 208 with your seat installed. It is possible that you may not be able to do this. As explained in our previous letter, Standard No. 208 is applicable to vehicles and not to individual items of equipment (except for pressure devices and explosive devices used in air bags). Therefore, you, as the seat manufacturer, would have no certification responsibilities under standard No. 208. The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify compliance with Standard No. 208. This is because compliance with Standard No. 208 is dependent on a variety of factors, including the seat, the seat belts, and the vehicle interior. Because you manufacture only the seat, you cannot control the other factors, and, therefore, probably cannot provide your clients with all the information they need in order to certify their vehicles compliance with Standard No. 208. However, you should be able to provide them with information on your seats that they can use to help determine if their vehicles comply with Standard No. 208.

Finally, you asked whether NHTSA would impose liability on you or the seat belt manufacturer if we discovered an apparent non-compliance with Standard No. 208. Because Standard No. 208 applies to the vehicle, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) imposes liability for non-compliance on the vehicle manufacturer, not the seat or seat belt

manufacturer. However, state law may allow the vehicle manufacturer to recover damages from the manufacturer of either the seat or the seat belt.

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

ID: aiam5392

Dear Mr. Neaga and Ms. Sabo: This responds to your letter asking abou a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems,' for built- in child restraints that use 'the same seat back surface as the adult occupant.' I apologize for the delay in responding. Before I begin, I would like to reference a May 26, 1994 telephone call to you from Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, about your letter's statement that the information you sent us is confidential. Ms. Fujita explained that letters requesting interpretations of our FMVSSs are public information, but suggested that we could return your sketches to you and make publicly available only your cover letter. You agreed this would satisfy your concerns about not disclosing your design concepts. Accordingly, Ms. Fujita has mailed your sketches to you. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter. You ask if your understanding is correct that 'lateral support of the side of the child's torso is not required by FMVSS 213.' The answer is yes. The torso impact protection requirement of S5.2.2.1(b) of Standard 213 specifies requirements for ' e ach system surface provided for support of the side of the child's torso' (emphasis added). The preamble for the final rule adopting S5.2.2.1(b) explains: 'The specifications do not require manufacturers to incorporate side supports in their restraints, they only regulate the surfaces that the manufacturer decides to provide so that they distribute crash forces over the child's torso.' 44 FR 72131, 72135, December 13, 1979. Please note that NHTSA determines independently from the manufacturer whether a particular surface is provided for side support. The determination is based on factors such as the design and intended use of the restraint, and the advertising literature for the restraint. Accordingly, a manufacturer cannot avoid complying with S5.2.2.1(b) simply by asserting that a side surface was not provided for side support. However, with regard to a built-in restraint such as yours that uses the same seat back surface as the adult occupant and where 'no lateral support other than the one offered to the adult occupant is provided,' it does not appear that the child restraint incorporates side supports subject to S5.2.2.1(b). If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: NCC02000890IIogm

Ms. Sonja Polt
Concept Technologie GmbH
Fischeraustrasse 13
A-8051 Graz Austria

Dear Ms. Polt:

This is in response to several questions contained in your electronic mail message to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations Office of Chief Counsel regarding test procedures under the head impact protection provisions contained in Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. Your electronic mail message states that your company is concerned about which approach and "roll" angles should be used when testing a target located on a seat belt anchorage. You note that the anchorage in question is located on the B-pillar of a vehicle your company is testing. As shown in a photograph embedded in your electronic mail message, this seat belt anchorage projects above the surface of the B-pillar.

Specifically, you note that Standard No. 201 specifies different vertical and horizontal approach angles for seat belt anchorage targets and targets located on a B-pillar. As the target in question is a seat belt anchorage located on a B-pillar, you ask whether the approach angles for a seat belt anchorage or for a B-pillar target apply. You also ask if the "roll" or offset angle should be the 5 degree angle used for all targets except those on the B and other pillars or the 10 degree angle used for B and other pillars.

Standard No. 201 establishes performance requirements for certain areas of vehicle interiors but does not require that all areas of the upper interior of a vehicle be subjected to compliance testing. Instead, the standard sets forth a number of discrete target areas that must be impacted by a test headform known as the Free Motion Headform (FMH). According to the standard, if a seat belt anchorage is located on the B-pillar, the target area known as BP2 is located on that anchorage. The performance requirements for the target areas are intended to reduce the risk of occupant head injury by ensuring that vehicle interiors have certain impact characteristics. All of the target areas may be impacted by the FMH provided that the FMH is directed at the target within a certain range of angles. These angles are referred to in Standard No. 201 as approach angles. If an approach angle for a particular target is within the range of permissible approach angles, that angle may be used in testing a target area.

S8.13.4 of the standard specifies a range of permissible horizontal and vertical approach angles that constrain the direction of the FMH when approaching particular types of targets. The approach angle limits are specified in Table 1 of the standard. That table separately lists, among other targets, the left B-pillar, right B-pillar, and seat belt anchorages. However, the table does not indicate what angles are to be used when a target is on a seat belt anchorage that is also located on a pillar.

We partially addressed your question in an October 15, 2002, letter to Mr. Takashi Yoshie of the Toyota Technical Center (copy enclosed). In response to Mr. Yoshies inquiry regarding the proper offset angle to be used when testing a seat belt anchorage on the B-pillar, we indicated that in those instances where the anchorage projects above the surface of the B-pillar, the appropriate offset angle is five degrees. However, we indicated that if the anchorage does not project above the surface of the B-pillar, the maximum offset of the vertical approach angle is ten degrees. As the photograph embedded in your message shows target BP-2 located on a seat belt anchorage that projects above the surface of the B-pillar, the appropriate angles would be those used for seat belt anchorages.

As we explained in our letter to Mr. Yoshie, the offset angles set forth in S8.13.4.2(b) were chosen to delay chin contact with the vehicle to allow appropriate HIC calculations. Ten degrees of downward rotation was determined to be an appropriate amount for determining the maximum vertical approach angle for B-pillar and other pillar targets. Five degrees of downward rotation was determined to be the appropriate amount for seat belt anchorage targets. In the case of seat belt anchorages mounted above the surface of the B-pillar, a ten degree offset would be unnecessary. Where the anchorage design results in BP2 being on or below the surface of the B-pillar, ten degrees would be appropriate to prevent early chin contact.

Once the appropriate offset angle is applied and the maximum vertical angle is established, one must determine which one of the range of horizontal and vertical approach angle limits listed in Table 1 applies. We note that in establishing the range of horizontal and vertical approach angle limits for seat belt anchorages, the agency indicated that seat belt anchorages could be approached at any horizontal angle. This choice of an unlimited range of horizontal angles was based on the agencys expectation that seat belt anchorages would most likely be protruding into the vehicle and could be contacted at any horizontal angle. Similarly, the agencys choice in setting vertical approach angle limits for seat belt anchorages, zero to fifty degrees, also reflects our expectation that seat belt anchorages would protrude into the vehicle. Unlike the limits set for pillar targets, which have lower limits adjusted to delay chin contact, the vertical approach angle limits for seat belt anchorages have a lower limit of zero.

Because we set seat belt anchorage approach angle limits under the expectation that these anchorages would protrude into the vehicle interior, where a target is located on a seat belt anchorage that is also on a pillar, the seat belt anchorage approach angles limits apply in those instances where the anchorage is located above the surface of a pillar. Where the anchorage is located on or below the surface of a pillar, the appropriate approach angle limits would be those applicable to the appropriate pillar. Therefore, in the case of the vehicle shown in the photographs attached to your message, in which the anchorage is located above the surface of the pillar, the proper approach angle limits would be those applicable to seat belt anchorages.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.6/9/03

ID: nht92-4.37

DATE: 08/14/92

FROM: PATTI AUPPERLEE

TO: DEE FUJIDA -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-28-92 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO PATTI AUPPERLEE (STD. 213; A40)

TEXT: My name is Patti Aupperlee. My business partner, Beth Wiswell, and I have invented a product for childrens car seats. We would like to manufacture them and then sell them retail. We want to comply with all government regulations regarding products for front facing car seats for children.

Our product name is COOL COVER and has a patent pending number of 07/684,783. This product is not the same as the current covers on the market. An example is the Diplomat Juvenile Corporation makes an infant car seat cover which is a liner for use when the child is in the car seat and it leaves several areas of the car seat exposed to direct sunlight and heat when the car seat is in a parked and empty car. COOL COVER completely covers the car seat when the child is not in the car seat and it is exposed to direct sunlight. The cover absorbs the heat that builds up in a parked car. The car seat will not be burning hot when it is time to travel with the child. The product also comes with its own specially designed pouch that turns into a comfortable pillow for the childs head. The pillow also acts as a storage area for the cover. The pillow does not interfere with the safety purpose of the car seat, or any of its straps or buckles. The COOL COVER is unique in that it significantly reduces the heat build up on the car seat in a parked car.

I received your name from Dick Jasinski at (202) 366-5298. The Auto Safety Hotline recommended that I speak with him. He mentioned that we need to make sure we are following governmental standards on flame retardants and any intereferance of operation among others that your office would give us the necessary information of standards. I have received a copy of FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 213.

I am enclosing a description of the product, pictures, the materials used, and a sample of those materials. Please advise me of the regulations that apply to our product.

The COOL COVER was created out of concern for the comfort of all children who must ride in a HOT car seat. We are mom's who never thought a car seat could be "dangerous" until one of our children suffered a burn from the contact with a buckle after the car seat had been exposed to the sun in a parked car.

I can be contacted at (407) 478-5850. My address is 5961 St. Barbara St. West Palm Beach, Florida 33415. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

ATTACHMENT OMITTED.)

ID: aiam1453

Dear Mr. Sundelin: This responds to your February 20, 1974 request for a determination o whether two of your motorcycle treadwear indicator designs conform to the S6.4 requirements of Standard 119 *New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.*; The treadwear indicator requirements have been amended by deleting al of the portio of S6.4 that begins 'The indicators shall, as a minimum'. this means that the manufacturer determines for himself the location and design of the six treadwear indicators requires (three in the case of motorcycle tires). He must assure himself that when the indicator is reached, the tread at that point o the tire is worn to a depth of on-sixteenth of an inch (or one-thirty-second of an inch in the case of motorcycle tires).; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-5.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 3, 1995

FROM: Thomas K. O'Connor -- Chief of Maintenance and Operations, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Verification of Seat Belt Regulations for Step Vans Over 10,000 Pounds GVW-Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 207, 208, 209, and 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS K. O'CONNOR (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: We are requesting written verification on the type of seat belt needed for our step van vehicles in order to comply with FMVSS 207, 208, 209, and 210. At issue is whether a lap-only seat belt versus a shoulder harness seat belt is needed for compliance. In a phone conversation between members of our respective staffs, we were informed that a lap-type belt would comply. We were further informed that written verification of this could be obtained by writing to your office.

In our field work, we use step vans with a Gross Vehicle Weight over 10,000 pounds, equipped with two front seats, a passenger's seat and a driver's seat. The passenger's seat is mounted on a metal pedestal which allows the seat to tilt forward, making easier access to the rear. The driver's seat is stationary. If both the passenger and driver seats are certified by the manufacturer to comply with FMVSS 207, 208, and 210 when properly installed, and if a certified seat belt (FMVSS 209) is properly installed, the question arose as to whether a lap-only seat belt would comply with FMVSS 207, 208, 209, and 210, or whether a shoulder harness type belt had to be used.

If there are any questions concerning our request for written verification on this matter, please contact Sally Yagol of my staff at (708) 222-4080, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., CST, Monday-Friday.

Thank you for consideration.