ID: nht95-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Randal K. Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/22/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO RANDAL BUSICK (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

This is in response to the letter of Mr. Philip Recht to Vehicle Science Corporation dated January 5, 1995 regarding our previous request for an interpretation of S7.1.2 of FMVSS 208.

In the final paragraph of his letter, Mr. Recht indicated that the agency's technical staff raised concerns about the "SLIDER BAR" to which the outboard lower end of the seat belt is attached (see attached diagram, "Attachment # 1"). Mr. Recht further st ated that the staff is concerned that the bar allows the seat belt webbing to slide freely fore and aft longitudinally. Mr. Recht concluded by saying that this design may prevent the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of FMVSS 208 as well as prevent the anchorage from meeting the location requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS 210.

Enclosed for your review are more detailed photographs and diagrams of the slider bar ("Attachment # 2"). Please note that the purpose of the slider bar is to allow ingress and egress to and from the rear seats of a 2-door vehicle. This system is very s imilar to the system used in the 3 series BMW coupe. The seat belt assembly (with slider bar) contemplated herein will be crash tested with an air bag under the requirements of FMVSS 208.

The forward (hooked) end of the slider bar is the point at which the belt always comes to rest when in use (buckled). This point is within the angle required by FMVSS 210 S4.3.1.1(b), and we therefore believe that the anchorage location requirements of Standard 210 are met.

In sum, once the crash test requirements and injury criteria of FMVSS 208 are met, together with applicable requirements of FMVSS 209 and 210, we do not see how the system "may prevent" the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of FMVSS 208 or the anchorage from meeting the location requirements of FMVSS 210.

Kindly respond to the Vehicle Science Colorado office, P.O. Box 1015, Golden, CO 80402-1015 (Tel. 303 279 0203) so that we can discuss this further and swiftly resolve the issues presented herein.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Attachments: (Drawings and Photos omitted)

ID: aiam1946

Dear Mr. Winn: This is in reply to your letters of January 28 and May 14, 1975 inquiring about the effect of Federal motor vehicle safety standards on a constituent's problem in finding a mid-size American car with a sufficiently adjustable seat or a dealer willing to modify such a vehicle to accommodate your constituent's 6-feet 8-inch frame.; The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-492 amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*., to prohibit any 'manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business' from 'knowingly render(ing) inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .' Because seat position is a variable which may affect compliance with several safety standards, dealers are understandably wary about relocating a vehicle's seat.; The obvious solution for this problem is for the manufacturer t determine how far its seats can be moved outside their normal adjustment ranges and still comply with applicable standards, and then to make this information available. I hope that Mr. Morton has found a dealer or manufacturer who is willing to make an effort to do this instead of relying on the excuse that Federal law precludes any solution. Mr. Morton also has two other alternatives: to buy and have installed a custom seat from a company willing to certify the altered vehicle under 49 CFR 567.7, or to move the original seat himself or with the assistance of people who are not in the motor vehicle repair business.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: 06-007784as

ID: aiam3083

Dear Mr. Wahls: This responds to your recent letter asking how much deflection o deformation of seat belt anchorages is allowed under the requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, for anchorages that are attached to or are a part of revolving pedestal seats. You mention cases in which seat bases deflect so much that the seat touches the floor before the forces required by the standard are attained.; As noted in your letter, paragraph S4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 21 specifies that permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. Likewise, the agency has stated in the past that the force requirements of Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, *provided* structural integrity of the seats is maintained.; Although Safety Standard No. 210 would allow some deformation of th seat base for anchorages that are part of pedestal seats, the structural integrity of the seats would have to be maintained during the force test. Further, you should note that Safety Standard No. 207 requires the forces for testing seats and the forces required by Safety Standard No. 210 to be applied simultaneously for seats that have belt assemblies attached to them. Thus, the pedestal seats discussed in your letter would have to maintain their structural integrity when subjected to the combined forces required by both standards. The agency would not consider pedestal seats to be in compliance with these requirements, if the seats are displaced to an extent that the agency determines occupant safety is threatened.; I hope this letter has clarified the agency's position regarding th force requirements of both Safety Standard No. 210 and Safety Standard No. 207.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3084

Dear Mr. Wahls: This responds to your recent letter asking how much deflection o deformation of seat belt anchorages is allowed under the requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, for anchorages that are attached to or are a part of revolving pedestal seats. You mention cases in which seat bases deflect so much that the seat touches the floor before the forces required by the standard are attained.; As noted in your letter, paragraph S4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 21 specifies that permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. Likewise, the agency has stated in the past that the force requirements of Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, *provided* structural integrity of the seats is maintained.; Although Safety Standard No. 210 would allow some deformation of th seat base for anchorages that are part of pedestal seats, the structural integrity of the seats would have to be maintained during the force test. Further, you should note that Safety Standard No. 207 requires the forces for testing seats and the forces required by Safety Standard No. 210 to be applied simultaneously for seats that have belt assemblies attached to them. Thus, the pedestal seats discussed in your letter would have to maintain their structural integrity when subjected to the combined forces required by both standards. The agency would not consider pedestal seats to be in compliance with these requirements, if the seats are displaced to an extent that the agency determines occupant safety is threatened.; I hope this letter has clarified the agency's position regarding th force requirements of both Safety Standard No. 210 and Safety Standard No. 207.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 8476

Mr. Michael Love
Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 30911
Reno, NV 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your letter of March 31, 1993. Your 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

ref:571#208#209#210 d:7/8/93 NCC-20:MVersailles:mar:62992:4/27/93 U:\NCC20\INTERP\208\8476.MLV cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron, NCC-20 MV, NRM-01, NEF-01 Interps:571.3, #208, #209, #210, Redbook (8)

PLEASE FAX COPY WHEN SIGNED

ID: nht93-5.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-31-93 from Michael Love to Mary Versailles (OCC 8506)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 31, 1993. Your letter refers to vehicle designs which have locations which meet the definition of "designated seating position," as defined at 49 CFR S571.3(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 S571.3 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.

ID: aiam4102

Dear Mr. Shapiro: Thank you for your letter of November 14, 1985, requesting a interpretation of Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. You explained that Volvo is planning to voluntarily add an extra anchorage for a Type 2 safety belt in the middle rear designated seating position, which is already equipped with two anchorages for a Type 1 safety belt. You asked whether the third anchorage point would have to meet the anchorage location requirements set forth in S4.3.2 of the standard. As explained below, the additional anchorage would not have to comply with the location requirements of the standard.; As you correctly pointed out, S4.1.2 allows manufacturers the option o installing anchorages for either a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt at the center rear designated seating position. Thus, by providing anchorages for a Type 1 belt at that seating position, Volvo has met the installation requirement of S4.1.2. The agency has stated in past interpretations, such as in a March 1, 1979 letter to Ford, that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems to comply with the standards. Thus, you may install a third anchorage if it does not affect the ability of the required anchorages to meet the standard.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: H. Hakaya -- Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in response to your letter of June 21, 1985 requesting, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 512, confidential treatment for your letter of that date and of the two attachments thereto.

Your request has been granted. NHTSA will treat your June 21, 1985 letter and the attachments confidentially. Pursuant to a January 22, 1986 telephone conversation between and Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, our letter to you regarding this matter will be made publicly available to the extent indicated on the copy which is enclosed. Also enclosed is a copy of this confidentiality determination, which indicates the extent to which it will be made publicly available.

Sincerely,

Kathleen DeMeter Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law

Dear

This responds to your request for this agency's concurrence that a proposed mini-van, which would use a front-wheel-drive passenger car platform as its base, would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5). The vehicle would have an airduct lying on top of the floor and running longitudinally rearward from the dash area between the two front seats and then turning outboard to enter the bottom of the 'B' pillar. While the top of the airduct would be above the level floor plane in the area between the front seats and immediately behind the front seats, it would not extend under the second or third seats, which would be removable. The floor would otherwise be flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make any necessary classification of vehicles and required certifications and to otherwise ensure that its vehicles meet all regulatory requirements. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the proposed mini-van would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5).

Section 523.5 provides in relevant part:

(a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions:

(1) Transport more than 10 persons:

(2) Provide temporary living quarters:

(3) Transport property on an open bed:

(4) Provide greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume: or

(5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

With respect to the location of the airduct, it is necessary in order to come within section 523.5(a)(5) that the removal of seats creates a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior. Since the airduct would not extend under the removable second or third seats, and since the floor is otherwise flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior, it is the agency's opinion that the vehicle would qualify as a light truck under section 523.5(a)(5).

This does not constitute an opinion as to whether this vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck for purposes of the safety standards. We note that the classification of the proposed mini-van for purposes of safety standards would be covered by 49 CPR Part 571.3 rather than Part 523. We have enclosed a copy of a letter dated December 1, 1983, which addresses some of the issues involved in making such classification.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. H. Nakaya Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding the classification of certain hypothetical mini-van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pan geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.

Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger carrying volume (sec, e.g., 49 CFR Part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (in the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meet the agency's "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MVP is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a "truck chassis." The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into a MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.

The floor pan difference mentioned in your first question do not appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same "chassis," since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.

Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs on whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.)

Your third question involves the significance of the relative sales levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a "truck chassis," with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.

If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Originally Signed By

Frank Herndt Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4930

"Dear Ms. Mesh-Witucki: This responds to your November 1, 1991 lette in which you asked for 'a certified copy of all rules/standards applicable to (a 1987 Chevrolet Cargo Van Conversion) both before and after conversion, and any other information you feel may be of assistance.' Your letter mentioned that you are interested in this information for pending litigation concerning an accident in which this vehicle was involved in which, '(a)llegedly, a rear seat passenger suffered a spinal fracture from the lap belt.' In a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff on November 26, 1991, you verified that you are specifically interested in regulations concerning the type of safety belts this vehicle was required to have. The following discussion should clarify NHTSA regulations regarding safety belts. The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). S4.2.1 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after January 1, 1976 and before September 1, 1991. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. Standard No. 208 and all the rest of NHTSA's safety standards are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. This and all other volumes of the CFR may be purchased by contacting: Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Phone: (202) 783-3238 Because the CFR is published by the Government Printing Office, that office is the only source for certified copies of the regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";