ID: 24460_CE_White_built-in

Mr. Scott Hiler
The C.E. White Co.
417 Kibler Street
P.O. Box 308
New Washington, OH 44854-0308




Dear Mr. Hiler:

This responds to your May 3, 2002, letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). We understand that your company manufactures seating systems for school buses and other vehicles. You ask whether the "C.E. White Co.s Child Restraint seat" can be "substituted for all required LATCH locations in a vehicle?" ^[1] Our answer is the seat can be substituted for one, but not all, LATCH systems.

Background

Standard No. 225 requires vehicles to be equipped with a specified number of "child restraint anchorage systems." "Child restraint anchorage system" is defined in S3 of the standard as:

a vehicle system that is designed for attaching a child restraint system to a vehicle at a particular designated seating position, consisting of:

(a) Two lower anchorages meeting the requirements of S9; and

(b) A tether anchorage meeting the requirements of S6.

Stated briefly, S4 of the standard requires vehicles to have a "child restraint anchorage system" at not fewer than two forward-facing rear designated seating positions. ^[2] S5(b) of the standard specifies that a vehicle may be equipped with a built-in child restraint system conforming to the requirements of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213), instead of one of the required child restraint anchorage systems. ^[3]

Discussion

You ask: "Since the C.E. White Co.s Child Restraint seat is considered a "Child Restraint Anchorage" as per S3, Definitions, could it be used as a substitution for all required LATCH locations in a vehicle?" Our answer is no. As stated above, the standard has a specific definition of a "child restraint anchorage system." While your child restraint seat may have certain features meeting the definition in S3 of a "child restraint anchorage," it does not possess the necessary features to meet the definition of a "child restraint anchorage system" under FMVSS No. 225. Since it is not a child restraint anchorage system, it cannot be substituted for all equired LATCH systems. Accordingly, a vehicle manufacturer must install the standards LATCH system on its vehicles. However, S5(b) of Standard No. 225 permits the manufacturer to substitute one of the required LATCH systems (or tether anchorages) with your built-in child restraint, provided that the seat meets the requirements of Standard No. 213.

We believe that requiring one type of attachment system on vehicles better standardizes the anchorage system. Standardizing the system reduces the potential for confusion on the part of consumers who might look for or expect one type of anchorage system and find another. Standardizing the system increases the likelihood that consumers will be familiar with the anchorage system and correctly use it. Standardizing the system also maintains better control over the compatibility between child restraints and the vehicle anchorage system. For these reasons, the LATCH system is required to be installed on all vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.8/22/02

---

^[1] "LATCH" stands for "Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children," a term that was developed by child restraint manufacturers and retailers to refer to the standardized child restraint anchorage system required by Standard No. 225. For convenience, this letter uses the term "LATCH system" in describing the Standard No. 225 anchorage system.

^[2] A tether anchorage is also required at a third forward-facing rear designated seating position, if the vehicle is equipped with at least three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. S5(a) excludes convertibles and school buses from the requirement to be equipped with tether anchorages.

^[3] A built-in system may also be substituted for the third tether anchorage that must be installed in vehicles equipped with at least three forward-facing rear designated seating positions (S5b).

ID: 1983-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 20, 1983

FROM: F. MICHAEL PETLER -- HEAD, ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, SUZUKI

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS NO. 210; SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY ANCHORAGES

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-6-83, TO F. MICHAEL PETLER, FROM FRANK BERNDT, NOA-30

TEXT: We are in urgent need of your confirmation of our interpretation of the seat belt assembly anchorage requirements for the rear seat.

Paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 210 states:

"Seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars other than convertibles, and for each designated seating position for which a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required by @ 571.208 in vehicles other than passenger cars."

In your agency's November 2, 1981 denial of Toyo Kogyo U.S.A.'s petition for rulemaking (46 F.R. 54391-54392) the following statement appears:

"The standard requires all passenger cars, lightweight trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles to be equipped with three-point anchorages for Type 2 belts (combination lap and shoulder belts) at each forward facing outboard designated seating position. Two-point anchorages for Type 1 belts (lap belts) are required at all other designated seating positions (center front and all rear positions)."

We interpret this standard to require that only Type 1 seat belt assembly anchorages must be installed for each seating position of a rear seat, such as in the case of a passenger car. We would appreciate a prompt reply as to whether we are correct in our interpretation of this standard.

ID: nht79-2.42

DATE: 07/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck-Lite Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 19, 1979, to Mr. W. M. Elliott of this agency requesting clarification of Paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This Paragraph states:

"Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle, as for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees in board."

You have asked the following questions:

"1. Is the decision to use another mounting location made at the discretion of the manufacturer?"

Yes. The manufacturer determines whether placement of the lamps in accordance with Standard No. 108 will indicate overall width or whether they are susceptible to damage if so placed, and there is no requirement that it obtain the concurrence of this agency in its decision.

"2. Are there any specific conditions that are required in order to consider it 'necessary' to mount clearance lamps in other location?"

No. The agency has established no criteria of necessity and questions on variations from front and rear mounting requirements are treated on an ad hoc basis.

"3. When the decision is made to mount the clearance lamps in another location, can a manufacturer use combination clearance/side marker lamps mounted on the side of vehicle to fulfill the clearance lamp requirements."

Yes, as long as the clearance lamp function is visible from the rear and indicates the overall width of the vehicle.

"4. Section S4.1.1.1 states that in 'such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard'. Does this mean that they need not be visible from 0 to 45 degrees inboard?"

No. SAE Standard J592e, Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification lamps, July 1972, requires clearance lamps to be visible at the H Point at 10 R and L, 20 R and L, 30 R and L, and at 45 R and L. Paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 specifies that under the alternate mounting positions the lamps need not be visible at the 45 degrees positions. They must, however, be visible at the other positions. I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

June 19, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dept. of Transportation

Attention: W. M. Elliott

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, Paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 which states that "Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to (Illegible Word) the overall width of a vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard".

Dear Mr. Elliott:

We would appreciate some clarification as to the proper application of the paragraph above which is Section S4.3.1.1.1 of FMVSS 108.

More specifically, it would be most helpful if you might be able to provide information that would help us answer the following questions:

1. Is the decision to use another mounting location made at the discretion of the manufacturer?

2. Are there any specific conditions that are required in order to consider it "necessary" to mount clearance lamps in another location?

3. When the decision is made to mount the clearance lamps in another location, can a manufacturer use combination clearance/sioemarker lamps mounted on the side of vehicle to fulfill the clearance lamp requirements?

4. Section S4.3.1.1.1 states that in "such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard". Does this mean that they need not be visible from 0 to 45 degrees inboard?

Any insight (official or otherwise) that you might be able to provide regarding these questions would be most appreciated. If you or someone in the department would like to contact us, feel free to telephone collect at 716/665-6214, ext. 32.

Thank you for your consideration.

A. L. Bragg Laboratory Manager

CC: J. BENNETT; R. TARR; C. POWLEY

ID: aiam5072

Dear Chairman Dingell: Thank you for your letter of September 17, 1992 enclosing correspondence from Mr. Aaron Gordon concerning seat belts on school buses. You requested comments on Mr. Gordon's letter and on H.R. 896, a bill referred to in Mr. Gordon's letter. The issue of safety belts on school buses is an important topic which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has thoroughly studied for many years. School bus transportation has been and continues to be one of the safest forms of transportation in America. Every year, approximately 370,000 public school buses travel approximately 3.5 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school-related activities. Since NHTSA began tracking traffic fatalities in 1975, an average of 16 school bus occupants per year have sustained fatal injuries. While each of these fatalities is tragic, the number of school bus occupant fatalities is small compared to the number of occupant fatalities to children in other types of vehicles. For example, in 1989 there were 5,287 deaths among children aged five to 18 in vehicles other than school buses. In 1977, NHTSA issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum crash protection levels for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization' -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. The effectiveness of 'compartmentalization' has been confirmed by independent studies by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Under the current requirements of Standard No. 222, small school buses, those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must provide 'compartmentalization' and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to 'compartmentalization' in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks. In 1987, the NTSB completed a study of the crashworthiness of large school buses, and concluded that most school bus occupant fatalities and serious injuries were 'attributable to the occupants' seating position being in direct line with the crash forces. It is unlikely that the availability of any type of restraint would have improved their injury outcome.' In 1989, NAS completed a study of means to improve school bus safety and concluded that 'the overall potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses are insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for mandatory installation. The funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts might better be spent on other school bus safety programs and devices that could save more lives and reduce more injuries.' The NAS pointed out that since children are at greater risk of being killed in school bus loading zones (i.e., boarding and leaving the bus) than on board school buses, 'a larger share of the school bus safety effort should be directed to improving the safety of bus loading zones.' A summary of the NAS report is enclosed. In response to the recommendations from the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several rulemaking actions, such as improvements to school bus visibility by the driver and requiring stop signal arms on school buses, designed to improve the safety of students in school bus loading zones. Besides the actions taken in response to the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several other rulemaking activities to improve further the safety of school buses, e.g., increasing the number of emergency exits, establishing wheelchair securement/occupant restraint requirements, and improving the body joint strength requirements. While there are no Federal requirements for safety belts on large school buses, states are free to install them if they feel it is in the best interest in their state. However, as noted in the NAS report, if the safety belts are to be beneficial, 'states and local school districts that require seat belts on school buses must ensure not only that all school bus passengers wear the belts, but that they wear them correctly.' In summary, the safety record of school buses is outstanding. As such, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that safety belts would provide even higher levels of occupant crash protection. Also, the agency agrees with the conclusion from the NAS report, that there is insufficient reason for a Federal mandate for safety belts on large school buses. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Marion C. Blakey Enclosure cc: Mr. Aaron Gordon;

ID: 15662.ogm

Ms. Jayne Hoskins
Senior Engineer
Jaguar Cars Ltd.
Abbey Road
Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF
England

Dear Ms. Hoskins:

This is in response to several questions asked by Jaguar Cars Ltd. (Jaguar) regarding test procedures under the head impact protection provisions contained in Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact.

In your facsimile transmission, you ask if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would consider compliance in all the specified target locations as acceptable evidence of meeting the requirements of the Standard. You also ask if the head protection provisions are still relevant in those areas where head protection is provided by side airbags. Finally, you ask about the status of any rulemaking regarding airbag systems that provide such head protection.

In a subsequent electronic mail message, you describe a concern you have regarding a seat belt anchorage d-ring which prevents the free motion headform (FMH) from impacting on target point BP-3. You asked if you should: a) increase the size of the target zone, b) move the headform around to hit the target with the side of the headform, or c) slide/rotate the d-ring out of the way.

In regard to your initial question, the head protection requirements of Standard 201 require manufacturers to meet performance requirements only at those target points that are located using the procedures found in S10 of 49 CFR 571.201. The original proposal for the head protection requirements envisioned performance requirements for zones. This was modified in the final rule to specify individual targets. However, you should be aware that, whatever means Jaguar may use in fulfilling its responsibility to certify its vehicles, that NHTSA will follow the test procedures outlined in Standard 201 in performing its own compliance tests and reserve the right to test all possible targets at all possible target locations.

You also ask whether the agency is contemplating any changes to Standard 201 to accommodate dynamic head protection systems. These systems, which use air bags that deploy from the roof rail and other areas to provide head protection in side impacts, are the subject of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued by the agency on August 19, 1997 and published in the Federal Register on August 26, 1997 (62 FR 45202). In that document, NHTSA proposed that manufacturers be provided with several options for demonstrating compliance with the head protection requirements of Standard No. 201. Under two of the proposed optional tests, target points over an undeployed system are impacted at reduced speeds and the deployed system is tested through impacts at higher speeds or through a full scale crash test involving an 18 mph side impact into a rigid pole.

In an electronic mail message forwarded after your original facsimile transmission, you ask about the appropriate procedure to be followed in the event that seat belt attachment hardware, specifically a d-ring, is located within a target zone and interferes with contact between the forehead impact zone of the FMH and the target point. S10.2(b) specifies that if a seat belt anchorage is on the B-pillar, target BP2 is located at any point on that anchorage. If the target in question is BP2, S8.7 provides that where an anchorage is adjustable, tests are to be conducted with the anchorage adjusted to a point midway between the two adjustment positions. If the target in question is not BP2, the anchorage may be moved within its range of adjustment so that the d-ring does not interfere with contact between the FMH and the target point. If the location of the d-ring still prevents contact between the forehead impact zone and the target area, S10(b) provides a procedure for relocating targets within a 25 millimeter sphere centered at the original target:

(b) Except as specified in S10(c), if there is no combination of horizontal and vertical angles specified in S8.13.4 at which the forehead impact zone of the free motion headform can contact one of the targets located using the procedures in S10.1 through S10.13, the center of that target is moved to any location within a sphere with a radius of 25 mm, centered on the center of the original target and measured along the vehicle interior, which the forehead impact zone can contact at one or more combination of angles.

If it is still not possible for the forehead impact zone to make contact within the sphere described in S10(b), S10© provides that the sphere may be expanded in 25 mm increments until contact can be made.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5263 or by electronic mail at omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:201
d.4\29\98

ID: aiam0403

Dear Mr. Eckhold: This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1971, raising question concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 that were initially asked by Ford at a meeting held with Administration representatives on March 9, 1971. Since the time of your letter, as you know, the Administration has proposed an amendment to the standard to clarify the requirements for separate and composite materials and one aspect of the test procedure. As the Administration intends that this proposal become effective on the standard's present effective date of September 1, 1972, our answers to your questions are based, where appropriate, on the proposed amendment as well as the present text of the standard.; We have restated your questions below, and have modified the answer you have provided where appropriate.; >>>1. What interior parts are covered by this standard . . .<<< A list of components which we believe to be included is attached. Your statement that ' . . . parts specifically named in the standar (are) included, as well as padded or crash-deployed elements designed to absorb energy in a crash' is incomplete, as it limits energy-absorbing elements to only padding or crash-deployed elements. S4.1 of the standard refers to padding and crash-deployed elements only as examples of energy-absorbing elements.; With reference to the list of components you have provided, it i difficult to determine without the exact configuration of each component whether it is subject to the standard's requirements. However, based upon the literal wording of S4.1, of those items you have listed, the following are specifically subject to the standard: arm rests (seat mounted) including pad and base, arm rests (door or trim panel mounted) including pad and base, package tray trim panels, truck rear compartment shelves, convertible backlight curtains, truck rear compartment curtains, floor carpeting including backing and sound deadener, floor mats, seat cushion and (seat) back pads, seat cushion and (seat) back covers, including threads and welts, window shades, convertible tops, engine compartment covers, headlining, head restraints, truck mattress covers, seat belts and shoulder harness, webbing and seat belt covers, sun visors, trim panels, including door, front, rear, side, station wagon cargo, and cowl side trim panels.; The following items that you have listed are not specificall enumerated in S4.1 of the standard, but apparently closely resemble or are merely different descriptions of items that are enumerated. If so they are subject to the standard: Exposed instrument panel package shelves, pillar covers, roof console, scuff plates, ash tray covers, storage boot for convertible tops, glove compartment box if not covered by door, and glove box doors (instrument panel or console).; The following components that you have listed, depending on thei actual configurations, would quite possible be covered under the language 'any other materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' Some components previously listed are repeated here, as they may fall within more than one category: instrument panel crash pads, crash- deployed elements (air bags and air bag-deployment doors), steering wheel pad assembly, hub emblem, cover assembly, emblem assembly, horn-blowing assembly, button assembly, and buttom (sic) assembly medallion, glove compartment doors, and ash try covers.; The following item would also be included as it is incorporated into surface or component that is subject to the requirements of S4.1: radio speaker grilles on doors or package tray trim panels.; We do not know the nature of the following components, and offer n opinion concerning whether they must meet the requirements: dash insulators, truck floor heat deflectors, door and quarter watershields, if exposed, and truck heater cover when mounted on engine cover.; The information provided above is based solely on the list provided and does not apply to any interior component that is not listed. Furthermore, we offer no opinion as to whether this list is exhaustive with regard to interior components, and point out that other components that are not listed may have to comply with the standard's requirements.; >>>2. Should seat welts be tested as loose pieces or attached t covers?<<<; Seat welts are considered part of the seat cover and should be teste as part of the seat cover.; >>>3. How is a part which is less than the specified size for a sampl to be tested?<<<; A part smaller than the specified sample size should be tested usin the thin, heat-resistant wires described in S5.1.3.; >>>4. A foamed-in-place trim panel could have several burn rate result because of varying shapes and thickness. How should samples be taken for testing?<<<; The sample should be chosen so that it will produce the most advers result when tested to the standard's requirements.; >>>6. Some package tray trim panels may include speaker holes or grill cloth in localized areas. How should the sample be taken for testing?<<<; The speaker grille cloth should be tested separately from the tri panel material.; >>>7. A given seat cover may employ several different kinds o material. Should all variations be tested?<<<; Yes. The requirements of the standard must be met by each variation i the materials.; >>>8. Are sewing threads considered surface materials?<<< Any material that contains threads that are used in sewing it t another should be tested with the threads as they appear in the material.; >>>9. Does bonded mean all methods of adhering materials?<<< The use of the term 'bonded' is intended in the sense that th materials adhere to each other at every point of contact. The proposed amendment eliminates the use of this term.; >>>10. Does underlying material refer only to the layer immediatel beneath the surface cover?<<<; No. It applies to all materials beneath the surface material. There i no depth limitation. The half-inch specification refers only to maximum sample thickness of S5.2.1.; >>>11. Paragraph S4.2(b) describes a composite. If a component is onl partially bonded should the composite be tested or individual parts.<<<; For purposes of the standard you have described two components, on that is bonded, and one that is not. Both must meet the standard's requirements.; >>>12. When padding materials are not bonded to surface materials, bu are bonded to substrate boards, are they considered as composite or separate pieces. The sun visor . . . was discussed as an example.<<<; Under both the present and the proposed wording of S4.2, an underlyin material that is not bonded to surface material would be treated as a separate material even if it is bonded or similarly attached to another underlying material. However, surface materials include more than the exposed surface of the vehicle interior. They include as well any undersurface, such as in certain vehicle seats or package shelves. In some cases, therefore, a substrate board may be a surface (undersurface) material, and thus be required to meet the requirements for surface materials. With reference to the sun visor, a sample of which was left with us, it should be treated as a component having two surfaces. The interior materials should be treated as underlying padding or cushioning material.; >>>13. Paragraph S5.1.3 calls for the use of support wires if errati burning results. At what point should this be done?<<<; The statement, 'NHTSA believes that support wires will not influenc the results' is correct, and the manufacturer may use the support wires whenever he wishes. Erratic burning includes, but is not necessarily limited to, burning at a non- uniform rate.; >>>14. Paragraph S5.2.1 -- Should samples from contoured, foame assemblies be cut so that a uniform 1/2 inch thickness results?<<<; We believe that samples of uniform thickness are preferable to thos that are not. The standard requires only that the specimen not exceed 1/2-inch thickness at any point.; >>>15. Paragraph S5.2.2 -- Is warp and fill testing for yard good adequate or should bias testing be conducted?<<<; The sample should be tested so as to produce the most adverse results. >>>16. Paragraph S5.3(d) -- Should flame be removed or shut off afte beginning of the test?<<<; While not specified in the standard, we are of the opinion tha shutting off the flame is preferable to withdrawal of the burner as the former will produce less change in the ambient conditions inside the test cabinet.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3194

Dear Mr. Tearle: This is in response to your recent letter and visit to the NHTS regarding the proper designated seating capacity for the Volvo 262C Coupe. The rear bench seat in this vehicle is 53.15 inches wide and has two depressed areas with contoured upholstery to fashion bucket seats. You ask whether the seat may be designated as having only two seating positions.; It is the agency's opinion that the rear seat in the Volvo 262C Coup must have three designated seating positions. The 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' (49 CFR 571.3). The rear seat in the Volvo Coupe is substantially over this 50-inch caveat in the definition, since it has more than 53 inches of hip room. Further, the seat design is not such that the center position cannot be used for seating. The center position is well padded on both the seat cushion and the seat back and there is no impediment to use of the position. This was demonstrated when several persons sat at the center position when your demonstration vehicle was brought to the agency.; Your letter mentions that the Volvo Coupe has less head room than othe Volvo models, yet there is sufficient head room even at the center position for large persons to occupy the seat. Therefore, we do not believe that the vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used. The fact that the two outboard positions of the rear seat are aesthetically designed to appear as bucket seats is irrelevant, since the center position is a well-padded integral part of the entire bench seat. Other current models have the same type bucket seat appearance in the rear seat, yet because of hip room have three designated seating positions. You might examine the 1978 Oldsmobile Regency Sedan, for example.; We noted in the demonstration model that the rear seat of the Volv Coupe has an arm rest at the center position that folds into the seat back. If the design of this arm rest were modified to be permanently attached to the seat cushion, the center position could not be used., The bench seat would then qualify as a two-person seat under the definition of 'designated seating position'.; Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents th agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter and an examination of the demonstration model brought to the agency. 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 the vehicles in accordance with that determination.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3193

Dear Mr. Tearle: This is in response to your recent letter and visit to the NHTS regarding the proper designated seating capacity for the Volvo 262C Coupe. The rear bench seat in this vehicle is 53.15 inches wide and has two depressed areas with contoured upholstery to fashion bucket seats. You ask whether the seat may be designated as having only two seating positions.; It is the agency's opinion that the rear seat in the Volvo 262C Coup must have three designated seating positions. The 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' (49 CFR 571.3). The rear seat in the Volvo Coupe is substantially over this 50-inch caveat in the definition, since it has more than 53 inches of hip room. Further, the seat design is not such that the center position cannot be used for seating. The center position is well padded on both the seat cushion and the seat back and there is no impediment to use of the position. This was demonstrated when several persons sat at the center position when your demonstration vehicle was brought to the agency.; Your letter mentions that the Volvo Coupe has less head room than othe Volvo models, yet there is sufficient head room even at the center position for large persons to occupy the seat. Therefore, we do not believe that the vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used. The fact that the two outboard positions of the rear seat are aesthetically designed to appear as bucket seats is irrelevant, since the center position is a well-padded integral part of the entire bench seat. Other current models have the same type bucket seat appearance in the rear seat, yet because of hip room have three designated seating positions. You might examine the 1978 Oldsmobile Regency Sedan, for example.; We noted in the demonstration model that the rear seat of the Volv Coupe has an arm rest at the center position that folds into the seat back. If the design of this arm rest were modified to be permanently attached to the seat cushion, the center position could not be used., The bench seat would then qualify as a two-person seat under the definition of 'designated seating position'.; Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents th agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter and an examination of the demonstration model brought to the agency. 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 the vehicles in accordance with that determination.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R. C. Attwood

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. C. Attwood ASE (UK) Ltd. Norfolk Street Carlisle, Cumbria ENGLAND CA2 5HX

Dear Mr. Attwood:

Thank you for your letter of October 8, 1985, concerning the safety belt: anchorage requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You asked a question about the anchorage requirements that would apply to a two point automatic safety belt, which has a separate manual lap belt. You asked if it is permissible for the two anchorages of the automatic belt and the two anchorages of the manual lap belt to be located outside of the zones specified in Standard No. 210, if three additional anchorages are located within Standard No. 210's zones. As explained below, the design you described would be permissible, assuming that you are voluntarily providing the manual lap belt.

Section S4.1.1 of the standard requires anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt to be provided at each front outboard seating position. Sections S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 set out the location requirements for Type 2 belts. However, S4.3 provides that the anchorages for automatic restraints which meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, do not have to meet the location requirements of the standard.

In interpreting the location requirement, the agency has said that all of the anchorages for an automatic belt may be located outside of the zones specified in Standard No. 210, as long as there are the three anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt located within the zone. Since your design for the automatic belt would provide three anchorages within the required zone, it would be permissible as long as the anchorages meet the strength requirements of the standard.

If you are voluntarily providing the manual lap belt, then its anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210 as long as the use of the lap belt would not degrade the ability of the automatic lap belt to comply with Standard No. 208. However, if you are providing the lap belt to comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c) of Standard No. 208, then the lap belt would have to have anchorages complying with Standard No. 210.

I hope this information is of assistance. If you need further information please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Our Ref: RCA/EC 8th October, 1985

The Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

FMVSS 208 a Seat Belt Anchorages

We seek your assistance in resolving a query about the location and number of anchorages in a passenger vehicle fitted with a two point automatic seat belt (passive restraint), and an active lap belt.

We wish to know if it is permissible for both anchorages of the two point automatic belt and both anchorages of the active lap belt to be situated outside the zones stipulated in FMVSS 210 on condition that three additional anchorages are provided in the zones specified in FMVSS 210.

Your early response to our questions will be very much appreciated.

Yours faithfully, R. C. Attwood Quality Assurance Director

ID: aiam5193

"Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your letter of March 31, 1993. You letter refers to vehicle designs which have locations which meet the definition of 'designated seating position,' as defined at 49 CFR 571.3(b), at certain times but not at others. 'For example, a seat with a folding seat back may be a seating position with the seat back in the up position and not with the seat back folded over the seat base. Another example of this could be if a platform or other device has several positions, one of which covers the seat so as to remove the necessary room to meet the designated seating position criteria.' You asked for verification of the following two statements which you believe are a correct interpretation of such a situation: When the seat meets the criteria, then seat belts must be provided according to the requirements of 571.208. In addition, those belts, since required by 571.208, must also meet the requirements of 571.209 and 571.210. When the seat does not meet the criteria, then seat belts are no longer required by 571.208. Any seat belts provided in this situation must no longer meet requirements of 571.208, 209 or 210. As explained below, NHTSA disagrees with your suggested interpretation. The term 'designated seating position' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. In both of the examples you provide, the position would be a 'plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female.' Therefore, these positions would be considered 'designated seating positions' at all times. Even though some adjustment may be necessary before the seat can be used, the seat is available at any time if needed. Your statements also raise the question of whether a vehicle must comply with all requirements related to a specific 'designated seating position' when that position is not usable for seating. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. NHTSA would only test a 'designated seating position' for compliance with applicable safety standards when testing can be done according with the test conditions and procedures specified in the standard. While the examples you provide are not specific enough to explain how testing would be done in those instances, if a 'designated seating position' was completely blocked under certain circumstances, NHTSA would not test under those circumstances. 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";