ID: nht93-7.3

DATE: October 1, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Stephen P. Wood

TO: Docket Section (Redbook, Standard No. 208)

TITLE: Interpretation of Standard No. 208

TEXT:

At the request of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC), this provides, for the public docket, an interpretation of the requirements of S7.1.1 and S7.1.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. OVSC asked us to address whether these sections require safety belts at the driver's position of vans to fit around a 95th percentile male dummy when the driver's seat is in the full forward position. As discussed below, the answer to that question is yes.

The general structure of S7.1.1 through S7.1.1.2 is that S7.1.1 sets forth requirements for seat belt assemblies that apply except as those requirements are modified in S7.1.1.1 and S7.1.1.2. S7.1.1.1 modifies S7.1.1 with respect to the range of people that must be fit, but not with respect to the range of seating positions in which that fit must be provided. S7.1.1 provides:

S7.1.1 Except as specified in S7.1.1.1 and S7.1.1.2, the lap belt of any seat belt assembly furnished in accordance with S4.1.2 shall adjust by means of any emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor that conforms to S571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 95th percentile adult male and the upper torso restraint shall adjust by means of an emergency-locking retractor or a manual adjusting device that conforms to S571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th percentile adult female to those of a 95th percentile adult male, with the seat in ANY POSITION, the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position, and any adjustable anchorages adjusted to the manufacturer's nominal design position for a 50th percentile adult male occupant. . . . (Emphasis added.)

Thus, except as modified in S7.1.1.1 and S7.1.1.2, the lap belt and upper torso restraint of any seat belt assembly must meet all the requirements of S7.1.1. More specifically, the lap belt must adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th percentile 6-year old child to those of a 95th percentile adult male, and the upper torso restraint must adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th percentile adult female to a 95th percentile adult male, with the seat in any position.

S7.1.1.1 makes a limited modification to S7.1.1's requirements for seat belt assemblies at the driver's seating position; S7.1.1.2 is not relevant to that seating position. Section S7.1.1.1 provides:

S7.1.1.1 A seat belt assembly installed at the driver's seating position shall adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th-percentile adult female to those of a 95th-percentile adult male.

S7.1.1.1 is significant in what it addresses and what it does not address. It does address the lap belt for the driver's seating position and as to that belt, the range of occupant sizes which must be fit. For the driver's seating position, the general requirement that the lap belt of any seat belt assembly must adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th percentile 6-year-old to those of a 95th percentile male is modified by S7.1.1.1 to apply to persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th-percentile adult female to those of a 95th percentile adult male. However, S7.1.1.1 does not address the range of seating positions in which seat belt fit must be provided and thus makes no change in S7.1.1 with respect to that range.

Therefore, S7.1.1 and S7.1.1.1 together require, for seat belt assemblies at the driver seating position, that the lap belt and upper torso restraint must adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th percentile adult female to a 95th percentile adult male, with the seat in any position.

The use of the term "any" merits special emphasis. With respect to the requirement that safety belts must fit the specified range of occupant sizes with the seat in "any position," the term "any," when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Therefore, safety belts at the driver's position of vans must fit a 95th percentile male dummy with the seat in all possible positions, including the full forward position.

ID: nht87-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/02/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Douglas C. Fairhurst -- Townley and Update

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Douglas C. Fairhurst, Esq. Townley & Update 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174

Thank you for your letter concerning how the requirements of Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would apply to an arrangement Jaguar has made for having its XJS hard-top model imported into the United States altered to become a convertible. You hav e raised a number of issues in your letter, which are addressed below.

You explained that "Jaguar has entered into a contractual arrangement with a company that specializes in converting hard-top vehicles into convertible models, the essential provisions of which obligate Jaguar to cooperate with and assist the converter in the latter's effort to secure orders from Jaguar's retail dealers for converting Jaguar XJS models imported into the United States into convertibles." You further explained that "The retail dealers to whom Jaguar sells the XJS will be encouraged to have any conversion work they desire to have done on the vehicles performed by this particular converter, although of course, they remain free to have conversion work done by anyone else if they so wish. Essentially Jaguar will facilitate the arrangement wit h its converter by making shipments of vehicles designated for conversion work by dealers directly to the converter's facilities. Under the contract, the converter has the responsibility of certifying that the vehicles on which it performs this work rema in in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety and emissions standards . . . ."

The first issue you raised is the application of S4.1.3.1.1 of the standard to this arrangement. That section requires each vehicle manufacturer to install automatic restraints in at least 10 percent of the passenger cars it produces during the time peri od, September 1, 1986 to August 31, 1987. You stated that Jaguar intends to meet the 10 percent requirement by installing automatic safety belts in its XJS models. You asked whether, assuming all the XJS models imported into the United States have automa tic safety belts and the total number of XJS models far exceeds the number of vehicles jaguar must equip with automatic restraints to meet the 10 percent requirement, it would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehic le Safety Act for Jaguar's dealers and Jaguar's authorized converter to remove the automatic safety belt in the "excess" vehicles and install manual Safety belts that comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 and 209 in those vehicles.

It would not be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(n) for Jaguar's dealers and the converter to alter the "excess" XJS hard-top models into convertibles and reinstall manual rather than automatic safety belts into the altered vehicle. Under our certificati on regulation, a person that alters a certified vehicle must certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms with all applicable safety standards. The agency has previously said, such as in a January 11, 1979 letter to James Brown, that when a vehicle is altered from one vehicle type to another, the alterer must certify that the vehicle conforms to the safety standards that apply to the new vehicle type, in this case a convertible. Convertibles are temporarily exempt from the automatic restraint requirem ents of Standard No. 208 during the phase-in period, and may instead have either a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt.

Please note that the agency's final decision in the ongoing rulemaking on applying the automatic restraint requirement to convertibles may affect the conversion of hard-top cars into convertibles. If the agency does not exempt convertibles permanently fr om the automatic restraint requirement, then a vehicle alterer would have to ensure that the altered cars still complied with the automatic restraint requirement. Likewise, if the agency applied a dynamic test requirement to the manual safety belts used in convertibles, a vehicle alterer would have to equip an altered vehicle with either manual safety belts meeting the dynamic test requirements or with an automatic restraint system.

Having addressed the issue of the alterer's responsibility, I would like to explain how these conversions affect Jaguar. It is Jaguar's responsibility under section 4.1.3.1.1 to produce 10 percent of its passenger cars equipped with automatic restraints during the first stage of the phase-in period. In the factual situation you have described, jaguar has entered into a contract to facilitate the conversion of some of its automatic restraint-equipped hard-top models into manual belt-equipped convertibles before the cars are first sold to a consumer. Since Jaguar has consented to the conversion, and in fact will be encouraging its dealers to use a particular "authorized" converter, jaguar cannot count a vehicle that has undergone an authorized conversion in determining whether it has produced sufficient vehicles equipped with automatic restraints. These conversions would reduce both the number of cars that would have to be equipped with automatic restraints, and the number that are equipped with such re straints. Thus, Jaguar should carefully monitor the number of conversions to ensure that there will still be a sufficient number of automatic restraint-equipped vehicles to still be a sufficient number of automatic restraint-equipped vehicles to meet S4. 1.3.1.1.

I also want to address one further issue concerning the altered vehicles. S4.1.3.1 of the standard provides a carryforward credit to manufacturers for the automatic restraint equipped vehicles they produce in excess of the required phase-in percentages. Since, as explained above, Jaguar cannot count vehicles that have undergone an authorized conversion in determining whether Jaguar has met the phase-in requirements, Jaguar also cannot use those vehicles for the purpose of the carryforward credit.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 2, 1986

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This follows up our discussion last Thursday regarding the post-September 1, 1986 passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208 as they would apply to the arrangement jaguar has made in the United States for having XJS hard-top models made into convertible s. At the conclusion of our meeting, I said I would frame the specific question on which Jaguar sought an advisory opinion from NHTSA and relate to you the material facts.

The salient facts are these. Jaguar has entered into a contractual arrangement with a company that specializes in converting hard-top vehicles into convertible models, the essential provisions of which obligate Jaguar to cooperate with and assist the con verter in the latter's efforts to secure orders from Jaguar's retail dealers for converting Jaguar XJS models imported into the United States into convertibles. The XJS, as I explained, is the 12 cylinder, two-door sports model which Jaguar offers to its dealers in two versions, the XJS-HE, which is the, hard-top coupe and the XJ-SC Cabriolet, the latter having the open-top feature of a convertible, but with the "B post" intact and a removable top consisting of interlocking targa panels. The retail deal ers to whom Jaguar sells the XJS will be encouraged to have any conversion work they desire to have done on the vehicles performed by this particular converter, although, of course, they remain free to have conversion work done by anyone else if they so wish. Essentially Jaguar will facilitate the arrangement with this converter by making shipments of vehicles designated for conversion work by dealers directly to the converter's facilities. Under the contract, the converter has the responsibility of cer tifying that the vehicles on which it performs this work remain in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety and emissions standards, and, as I explained, there are provisions under which Jaguar will be providing the converter with financial as sistance.

The issue I raised respecting the applicability or Regulation S4.1.3.1.1 (49 C.F.R. 571.208, S4.1.1.3.2) to this project arises by virtue of the intention of Jaguar to meet its obligation to fit passive restraint systems in no less than 108 of the vehicl es Imported into the country between September 1, 1986 and September 1, 1987 by installing automatic seat belts in the XJS models I have just described. The specific question Jaguar poses to NHTSA is whether, if all of the aforementioned XJS models impor ted into the United States were equipped with automatic seat belts (this being a number far exceeding the actual number of vehicles that need be fitted with such belts in order for Jaguar to meet the 108 requirement), it would be lawful under the Safety Act for Jaguar's dealers and the converter with which Jaguar has made this contract to remove the automatic belts in the "excess" vehicles and refit these vehicles with manual seat belts that comply with the requirements of FMVSS 208 and 209 as these app ly to convertibles? This removal and refitment operation is necessary because the process of converting the vehicle entails removal of the "B post" to which part of the assembly mechanism used in the automatic seat belt is affixed. As I say, the converte r will be recertifying that each converted vehicle conforms to all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards and Jaguar will be selling to its dealers sufficient numbers of XJS models equipped with automatic seat belts to meet its 108 obligation.

Since the converted vehicles would continue to meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 and 209, it was and remains my view that under these circumstances the removal of automatic belts installed by the factory on an "optional" basis would not "impair" or rend er inoperative any device installed to meet a safety standard and hence would not constitute a violation of 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(a).

We would appreciate confirmation of this view and any other comments you feel are appropriate.

Very truly yours,

DOUGLAS C. FAIRHURST

ID: 007749drn-3

Robert Strassburger, Vice President
Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your request that we reconsider a May 6, 2003, interpretation letter to Jaguar Cars on the meaning of "daylight opening" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. After carefully considering your request, we affirm the opinion stated in our letter. Our reasons are set forth below.

In its request for interpretation, Jaguar asked whether the daylight opening should be measured to the edge of complete blackout area, the start of dot fade area, or to some point in between. We explained that the daylight opening is measured to the edge of complete blackout area on the indshield.

Daylight opening is defined at S3 of FMVSS No. 104 as: "the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface, as defined in paragraph 2.3.12 of section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963."

Paragraph 2.3.12 of that SAE standard states:

The term "Daylight Opening" (abbreviated DLO) refers to the maximum unobstructed opening through any glass aperture, including reveal or garnish moldings adjoining the glass, according to a given direction or projection. If not specified the dimension will be the vertical projection.

We noted that the definition of "daylight opening" referred to by Jaguar was in a later SAE document (SAE Recommended Practice J1100) and not the one referenced in FMVSS No. 104. One difference between the definition of "daylight opening" in the older document and the one in J1100 is that the newer one treats "opaque coatings" in the same manner as reveal or garnish moldings.

In our letter, we noted that opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield are now used to serve the function once served by moldings, i.e., covering the glue around the edges of the windshield. Given this changed technology, we believed it was appropriate to treat opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield in the same manner as moldings, in interpreting the term "daylight opening" in FMVSS No. 104. We stated, however, that this is only true for what Jaguar referred to as "complete blackout" or "truly opaque" areas. We stated that the dot fade area is not truly opaque, and is not analogous to moldings. Thus, daylight opening is measured to the edge of complete blackout area.

In your recent letter, you disagree with our view about the dot fade area. You believe that the dot fade area that is ordinarily inboard of the opaque coatings at the edge of the windshield should not be included in the measurement of "daylight opening."

According to your letter:

"Daylight Opening" is defined both in FMVSS No. 104 and in the referenced SAE standard as the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface. The dot-fade area is not "unobstructed." Rather, the dot-fade area is more appropriately viewed as the transition to the opaque area of the windshield, analogous to the edge of a molding in an older design. As moldings would not have been included in the definition of "daylight opening" under the standard, the dot-fade edge of the opaque area should likewise not be included in that definition. For the same reason, Alliance members have not included dot-fade areas as part of the daylight opening when providing windshield measurements to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for purposes of FMVSS 104 compliance testing.

While we have considered your arguments, we do not agree that the dot fade area toward the edges of a windshield represents an obstruction within the meaning of FMVSS No. 104.

As a technical matter, we believe that the term "unobstructed opening," as used in the 1963 SAE document incorporated into FMVSS No. 104, originally referred to physical obstructions. In our letter to Jaguar, however, we noted that opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield are now used for the function once served by moldings, i.e., covering the glue around the edges of the windshield. Given this changed technology, we believed it was appropriate to treat opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield in the same manner as moldings, in interpreting the term "daylight opening" in FMVSS No. 104.

After considering your letter, we continue to believe that this is true only for what Jaguar referred to as "complete blackout" or "truly opaque" areas. The dot fade area is not truly opaque and does not cover the adhesive.We therefore do not consider it analogous to moldings or to the "edge of a molding." (The edge of a molding is a part of the molding and is opaque.) If anything, the dot fade area is more analogous to shade bands, which are not obstructions. Since a dot fade area neither constitutes a physical obstruction nor is opaque, it comes within the definition of "daylight opening."

We note that in a letter dated February 24, 2004, you cited a letter from the Vehicle Certification Agency of Great Britain concerning its interpretation of the term "daylight opening" under the applicable ECE regulation and direction. However, that agency was providing an interpretation of different language with different origins from that included in FMVSS No. 104.

Because there has been some confusion within the industry regarding the proper interpretation of the term "daylight opening," we will begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003, interpretation beginning with vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2005.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.3/31/04

ID: 571-217--label requirement--14-001681 Matheny

ID: 7331

Christian Hammarskjold
Vice President
USSC Group, Inc.
20 Union Hill Road
West Conshohocken, PA 19428

Dear Mr. Hammarskjold:

This responds to your letters of May 28, 1992 concerning suspension seats. Your first letter states that you have been asked by SCRTD in Los Angeles to develop a system that will allow your suspension seats for the driver's seating position in transit buses to tilt from side-to-side. Your letter states:

In addition, USSC is concerned that there are not applicable FMVSS requirements that address a side-to- side strength requirements. 207/210 requires a pull from the front of the seat. What happens if there is a side impact on a suspension seat that has a ball and socket joint. Are there any applicable performance requirements that may apply to such a system.

With respect to seats which tilt side-to-side, you are correct that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, does not include a performance requirement addressing side-to-side strength. Standard No. 207 requires certain specified forces to be applied only in a forward direction and in a rearward direction. All seats, in all vehicles, except for side-facing seats or passenger seats in buses, must be capable of withstanding these forces when tested in accordance with the S5 of Standard No. 207.

However, you should be aware that manufacturers are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. The defect responsibility is a broad one and would include the side-to-side performance of your seat. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a vehicle containing your seat has a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. You may be interested in a current proposal to amend Standard No. 207 to establish revised test procedures for pedestal seats. I have enclosed a copy of the notice for your information.

Your second letter asks when shoulder belts will be required on suspension seats. The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle, not based on seat design. I have limited the following discussion of safety belt requirements to trucks and buses, as I am unaware of any passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles which contain suspension seats. As explained below, shoulder belts are required at every forward-facing outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; at the driver's seating position and at every forward-facing outboard seating position in buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; and at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions in school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Shoulder belts are not required at any other seating positions in these vehicles or in trucks or buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds.

The requirements for trucks are contained in sections S4.2 and S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Sections S4.2.2 and S4.2.3 of Standard No. 208 give vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 and before September 1, 1997. 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 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 a 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. In addition, each Type 2 seat belt assembly (i.e., lap/shoulder safety belts) installed at a front outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less must satisfy the dynamic testing requirements in S4.6.

S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies that a Type 2 seat belt assembly must be installed at each forward-facing rear outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991.

Section S4.2.5 of Standard No. 208 specifies a phase-in of trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less that must satisfy the requirements of S4.1.2.1 (Option 1 above). Twenty percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 and before September 1, 1995 must meet this requirement; 50 percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1995 and before September 1, 1996; 90 percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997. All trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 must comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1.

Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. In addition, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR).

The requirements for buses are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. In addition, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR.

Section S4.4.3 requires buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position and at every front and rear forward-facing seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, are required to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions, and either a lap belt or lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. As mentioned previously, buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 are subject to the phase-in requirement for automatic occupant protection.

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,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Attachment

ref:207#208 d:8/10/92

ID: nht92-4.42

DATE: August 10, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

TO: Christian Hammarskjold -- Vice President, USSC Group, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letters dated 5/28/92 from Christian Hammarskjold to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letters of May 28, 1992 concerning suspension seats. Your first letter states that you have been asked by SCRTD in Los Angeles to develop a system that will allow your suspension seats for the driver's seating position in transit buses to tilt from side-to-side. Your letter states:

In addition, USSC is concerned that there are not applicable FMVSS requirements that address a side-to-side strength requirements. 207/210 requires a pull from the front of the seat. What happens if there is a side impact on a suspension seat that has a ball and socket joint. Are there any applicable performance requirements that may apply to such a system.

With respect to seats which tilt side-to-side, you are correct that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, does not include a performance requirement addressing side-to-side strength. Standard No. 207 requires certain specified forces to be applied only in a forward direction and in a rearward direction. All seats, in all vehicles, except for side-facing seats or passenger seats in buses, must be capable of withstanding these forces when tested in accordance with the S5 of Standard No. 207.

However, you should be aware that manufacturers are subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. The defect responsibility is a broad one and would include the side-to-side performance of your seat. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a vehicle containing your seat has a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You may be interested in a current proposal to amend Standard No. 207 to establish revised test procedures for pedestal seats. I have enclosed a copy of the notice for your information.

Your second letter asks when shoulder belts will be required on suspension seats. The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle, not based on seat design. I have limited the following discussion of safety belt requirements to trucks and buses, as I am unaware of any passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles which contain suspension seats. As explained below, shoulder belts are required at every forward-facing outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; at the driver's seating position and at every forward-facing outboard seating position in buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; and at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions in school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or

less. Shoulder belts are not required at any other seating positions in these vehicles or in trucks or buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds.

The requirements for trucks are contained in sections S4.2 and S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Sections S4.2.2 and S4.2.3 of Standard No. 208 give vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 and before September 1, 1997. 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 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 a 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. In addition, each Type 2 seat belt assembly (i.e., lap/shoulder safety belts) installed at a front outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less must satisfy the dynamic testing requirements in S4.6.

S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies that a Type 2 seat belt assembly must be installed at each forward-facing rear outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991.

Section S4.2.5 of Standard No. 208 specifies a phase-in of trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less that must satisfy the requirements of S4.1.2.1 (Option 1 above). Twenty percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 and before September 1, 1995 must meet this requirement; 50 percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1995 and before September 1, 1996; 90 percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997. All trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 must comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1.

Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. In addition, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR).

The requirements for buses are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990.

Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. In addition, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR.

Section S4.4.3 requires buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position and at every front and rear forward-facing seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, are required to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions, and either a lap belt or lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. As mentioned previously, buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 are subject to the phase-in requirement for automatic occupant protection.

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: aiam1948

Dear Mr. Terry: This responds to your letter of May 13, 1975, requesting confirmatio that Chrysler's new unibelt shoulder/lap belt system with a 'window shade' tension adjustment feature satisfies the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, that the lap belt portion 'adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor.' You describe the seat belt assembly as of the single retractor, continuous loop type, with a B-pillar-mounted 'window shade' emergency-locking retractor, and a one-way locking device in the buckle tip which prevents return of webbing to the lap portion from the torso portion when the belt assembly is in use.; Section 7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion 'by means o an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor' and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion 'by means of an emergency-locking retractor.' The language permits some single refractor, continuous loop systems as long as the single retractor does 'automatically adjust' the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive belt slack. Because of the submarining danger of a slack lap belt, the NHTSA has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.; One restriction, set forth in a letter to Renault, Inc., on Septembe 25, 1972, is that 'the friction in the buckle is low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder belt cinches up the lap belt.'; We would like to clarify that letter by emphasizing that, to conform t the requirements, the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as 'automatically adjustable.' Thus, it is the manufacturer who determines whether or not the particular belt is designed to satisfy the requirements of the standard. In your May 16, 1975, demonstration to Messrs. Hitchcock, Nelson, Medlin, Smith, Breedon, and Ziegler of the NHTSA, we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of that continuous loop system.; The other restriction was set out in a March 9, 1973, letter to Genera Motors. It limits the use of 'comfort clips' on the upper torso portion of continuous loop systems. The letter distinguishes continuous loop systems from systems that have separate lap and shoulder belt retractors. It concludes that 'a comfort clip would be acceptable under S7.1.1 of the standard, so long as the shoulder belt is otherwise capable of adjustment as required by S7.1.1.'; This restriction has since been the subject of an NHTSA proposa (Docket 74-32, Notice 1) which would restrict the use of 'a device used to limit retractive action of an emergency-locking retractor for the comfort of the occupant' to seat belt assemblies that have 'an individually adjustable lap belt.' Chrysler's response to that proposal and stated plan to introduce a continuous loop belt system with a 'window shade' device in the new 1976 model four-door compact car assume that NHTSA intends to permit 'belt tension relief' devices on all continuous loop systems. I would like to point out that this issue is outstanding in Docket 74-32.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: 1840y

Dear

Thank you for your letter requesting interpretations of how Standards No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR /571.203) and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210) apply to a vehicle in which the driver's seating position is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic safety belt. We have concluded that the vehicles described in your letter appear not to be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 203, based on your representation that the driver's position in those vehicles would comply with the occupant protection criteria in section S5.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) by means of the air bag alone. Further, if the manufacturer certifies that the driver's position in those vehicles would comply with the occupant protection criteria in section S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the automatic safety belts in place, the anchorages for the automatic belts would be exempted from the anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210. These conclusions are explained below.

Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly release the identities of the vehicle manufacturer or its counsel because the development of vehicles with both air bags and automatic safety belts "is competitively sensitive." We hereby grant your request. You provided us with a version of your letter deleting all references to the identity of the manufacturer and its counsel. We will make available to the public your purged version of your letter to us and a version of this letter purged of all references to your identity.

Standard No. 203

With respect to Standard No. 203, section S2 of Standard No. 203 provides that the standard "does not apply to vehicles that conform to the frontal barrier crash requirements (S5.1) of Standard No. 208 by means of other than seat belt assemblies." The first question is whether S2 exempts from Standard No. 203 those vehicles whose driver's seating position conforms to the frontal barrier crash requirements by means other than belt assemblies, or whether S2 only exempts from Standard No. 203 those vehicles in which both the driver's position and the right front outboard seating position conform to the frontal barrier crash requirements by means other than belt assemblies. After examining the history and purpose of this requirement, we have concluded that vehicles are not subject to Standard No. 203 if the driver's seating position offers the specified occupant protection, for the following reasons.

The title of Standard No. 203 explicitly states that it is intended to provide protection for the driver, not for any other vehicle occupants. Moreover, section S2 of Standard No. 203 was promulgated after NHTSA determined that compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 203 could impede the development and installation of a more advanced occupant protection system, such as air bags, at the driver's position. See 40 FR 17992; April 24, 1975. This determination would not apply with respect to any seating positions other than the driver's position, because compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 203 would have no positive or negative effects on the development and installation of occupant protection systems at any other seating positions. Given the history and purpose of Standard No. 203 in general and section S2 in particular, section S2 must be interpreted so that Standard No. 203 does not apply to vehicles whose driver's seating position offers the specified occupant protection.

Having determined that one examines only the driver's seating position to see whether a vehicle is exempt from the requirements of Standard No. 203 by virtue of the provision in section S2 of the standard, we must now determine whether a vehicle whose driver's seating position is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic safety belt can be said to conform to S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means other than seat belt assemblies. We conclude that it can if the manufacturer certifies that the driver's seating position conforms with S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means of the air bag alone.

If the manufacturer certifies that the air bag alone provides the specified occupant protection at the driver's seating position, then, for purposes of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, the installation of the automatic safety belt would be a voluntary action by the vehicle manufacturer. The agency has long stated that manufacturers are free to install systems or components in addition to the required safety systems or components, provided that the additional systems do not destroy the ability of the required systems to comply with the applicable safety standards. Therefore, if a manufacturer certifies that an air bag alone provides the specified occupant protection at the driver's seating position, an automatic safety belt at that seating position would be a safety system installed in addition to the air bag system. The only limitation on the installation of automatic safety belts at such seating positions would be that the combination of the automatic safety belt and the air bag must comply with the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208. If a manufacturer certifies that the driver's seating position in a vehicle complies with S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means of an air bag alone, that vehicle would be exempt from Standard No. 203 even if an automatic safety belt system were also provided for the driver's seating position. If the manufacturer cannot certify that the driver's seating position complies with the requirements of S5.1 by means of the air bag alone, then both the air bag and the automatic safety belt are necessary to provide the required level of occupant protection. In this case, the vehicle would be subject to Standard No. 203, because it relies on a seat belt system to conform with the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 210

Section S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that: "Anchorages for automatic and for dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirement of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR /571.208) are exempt from the location requirements of this section." This exemption is premised on the agency's conclusion that the anchorage location requirements are unnecessary when the same aspects of performance are indirectly tested in dynamic testing. See 50 FR 14589, at 14595; April 12, 1985. That is, the anchorage location requirements are an indirect means of ensuring that a belt system will afford adequate protection to a user in a crash. The dynamic testing requirements directly measure the protection the belt system offers belt users in a frontal crash.

Your letter referred to a March 14, 1988 letter we sent to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber. In his letter, Mr. Faber asked whether standard equipment items in the vehicle would be operational during compliance testing. We responded in part as follows:

During its compliance testing, NHTSA combines a test of the occupant crash protection capabilities of automatic or manual safety belts with testing done to determine compliance with other standards. ... In conducting these compliance tests, NHTSA tests vehicles in their "as delivered" form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has devices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices for the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equipment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning.

In other words, Standard No. 210 does not require that the safety belt alone provide the specified level of occupant protection in order for the anchorages to be exempt from the anchorage location requirements. Such a requirement would be unrealistic, since occupant crash protection depends on the safety belt system working synergistically with other vehicle features, such as energy absorbing instrument panels, collapsible steering columns, and anti-lacerative windshield glass. Because of this synergism, NHTSA has always conducted its Standard No. 208 compliance testing with all items of standard equipment in place and functioning during the test. We would treat an air bag in the same way. Therefore, if the vehicle manufacturer certifies that the driver's seating position complies with the occupant protection criteria in Standard No. 208 with an automatic belt in position and functional during the test, the anchorages for that automatic belt would be exempt from the location requirements in Standard No. 210. This certification by the manufacturer would be based on the protection afforded by the automatic belt and all other standard features in the vehicle, including air bags.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:203#208#210 d:6/5/89

ID: nht89-1.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: Anonymous (confidential)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/09/89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATIONS OF FMVSS 203 AND 210; NON CONFIDENTIAL VERSION

TEXT: Dear

Thank you for your letter requesting interpretations of how Standards No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR @ 571.203) and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR @571.210) apply to a vehicle in which the d river's seating position is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic safety belt. We have concluded that the vehicles described in your letter appear not to be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 203, based on your representation that the driver's position in those vehicles would comply with the occupant protection criteria in section S5.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @571.208) by means of the air bag alone. Further, if the manufacturer certifies that the driver' s position in those vehicles would comply with the occupant protection criteria in section S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the automatic safety belts in place, the anchorages for the automatic belts would be exempted from the anchorage location requirement s in Standard No. 210. These conclusions are explained below.

Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly release the identities of the vehicle manufacturer or its counsel because the development of vehicles with both air bags and a utomatic safety belts "is competitively sensitive." We hereby grant your request. You provided us with a version of your letter deleting all references to the identity of the manufacturer and its counsel. We will make available to the public your purge d version of your letter to us and a version of this letter purged of all references to your identity.

Standard No. 203

With respect to Standard No. 203, section S2 of Standard No. 203 provides that the standard "does not apply to vehicles that conform to the frontal barrier crash requirements (S5.1) of Standard No. 208 by means of other than seat belt assemblies." The fi rst question is whether S2 exempts from Standard No. 203 those vehicles whose driver's seating position

2 conforms to the frontal barrier crash requirements by means other than belt assemblies, or whether S2 only exempts from Standard No. 203 those vehicles in which both the driver's position and the right front outboard seating position conform to the fro ntal barrier crash requirements by means other than belt assemblies. After examining the history and purpose of this requirement, we have concluded that vehicles are not subject to Standard No. 203 if the driver's seating position offers the specified o ccupant protection, for the following reasons.

The title of Standard No. 203 explicitly states that it is intended to provide protection for the driver, not for any other vehicle occupants. Moreover, section S2 of Standard No. 203 was promulgated after NHTSA determined that compliance with the requi rements of Standard No. 203 could impede the development and installation of a more advanced occupant protection system, such as air bags, at the driver's position. See 40 FR 17992; April 24, 1975. This determination would not apply with respect to any seating positions other than the driver's position, because compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 203 would have no positive or negative effects on the development and installation of occupant protection systems at any other seating positions . Given the history and purpose of Standard No. 203 in general and section S2 in particular, section S2 must be interpreted so that Standard No. 203 does not apply to vehicles whose driver's seating position offers the specified occupant protection.

Having determined that one examines only the driver's seating position to see whether a vehicle is exempt from the requirements of Standard No. 203 by virtue of the provision in section S2 of the standard, we must now determine whether a vehicle whose dr iver's seating position is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic safety belt can be said to conform to S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means other than seat belt assemblies. We conclude that it can if the manufacturer certifies that the driver's se ating position conforms with S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means of the air bag alone.

If the manufacturer certifies that the air bag alone provides the specified occupant protection at the driver's seating position, then, for purposes of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, the installation of the automatic safety belt would be a voluntary action by the vehicle manufacturer. The agency has long stated that manufacturers are free to install systems or components in addition to the required safety systems or components, provided that the additional systems do not destroy the ability of the required systems to comply with the applicable safety standards. Therefore, if a manufacturer certifies that an air bag alone provides the specified occupant protection at the driver's seating position, an automatic safety belt at that seating position would be a safety system installed in addition to the air bag system. The only limitation on the installation of automatic safety belts at such seating positions would be that the combination of the automatic safety belt and the air bag must comply with the requ irements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208. If a manufacturer certifies that the driver's seating position in a vehicle complies with S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means of an air bag alone, that vehicle would be exempt from Standard No. 203 even if an automati c safety belt system were also provided for the driver's seating position.

3

If the manufacturer cannot certify that the driver's seating position complies with the requirements of S5.1 by means of the air bag alone, then both the air bag and the automatic safety belt are necessary to provide the required level of occupant protec tion. In this case, the vehicle would be subject to Standard No. 203, because it relies on a seat belt system to conform with the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 210 Section S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that: "Anchorages for automatic and for dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirement of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR @571.208) are exempt from the location requir ements of this section." This exemption is premised on the agency's conclusion that the anchorage location requirements are unnecessary when the same aspects of performance are indirectly tested in dynamic testing. See 50 FR 14589, at 14595; April 12, 19 85. That is, the anchorage location requirements are an indirect means of ensuring that a belt system will afford adequate protection to a user in a crash. The dynamic testing requirements directly measure the protection the belt system offers belt use rs in a frontal crash.

Your letter referred to a March 14, 1988 letter we sent to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber. In his letter, Mr. Faber asked whether standard equipment items in the vehicle would be operational during compliance testing. We responded in part as follows:

During its compliance testing, NHTSA combines a test of the occupant crash protection capabilities of automatic or manual safety belts with testing done to determine compliance with other standards. . . . In conducting these compliance tests, NHTSA t ests vehicles in their "as delivered" form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has devices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices for the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equi pment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning.

In other words, Standard No. 210 does not require that the safety belt alone provide the specified level of occupant protection in order for the anchorages to be exempt from the anchorage location requirements. Such a requirement would be unrealistic, s ince occupant crash protection depends on the safety belt system working synergistically with other vehicle features, such as energy absorbing instrument panels, collapsible steering columns, and anti-lacerative windshield glass. Because of this synergi sm, NHTSA has always conducted its Standard No. 208 compliance testing with all items of standard equipment in place and functioning during the test. We would treat an air bag in the same way. Therefore, if the vehicle manufacturer certifies that the d river's seating position complies with the occupant protection criteria in Standard No. 208 with an automatic belt in position and functional during the test, the anchorages for that automatic belt would be exempt from the location

4 requirements in Standard No. 210. This certification by the manufacturer would be based on the protection afforded by the automatic belt and all other standard features in the vehicle, including air bags.

Sincerely,

ID: nht79-4.11

DATE: 09/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the proper "designated seating capacity" for the "Dodge D-50" and "Plymouth Arrow" pick-up trucks. The trucks with which you are concerned have bench seats with 53.5 inches of hip room, with a contoured indentation at the center position for the gear shift lever. You believe that only two positions should be designed for this type bench seat.

As stated in the preamble to the recent notice amending the definition of "designated seating position", and noted in your letter, the presence of a floor gear-shift lever would not normally be sufficient to discourage or make use of a center position on a large bench seat impossible, even if the bench seat has a slightly indented contour for the shift lever (44 FR 23232, April 19, 1979). The notice did state that there could conceivably be a vehicle design in which the gear-shift lever would constitute an impediment to sitting. For example, if the lever extended to within a few inches of the seat back, the center position could not easily be used. This does not appear to be the case with the "Dodge D-50" or "Plymouth Arrow", however.

Since the bench seats in the subject vehicles have 53.5 inches of hip room, well over the 50-inch caveat in the amended definition, it is the agency's opinion that there should be three designated seating positions. The photographs enclosed in your letter show that three test dummies can be placed on the bench seat, even though somewhat crowded. Moreover, these photographs show two 95th-percentile male dummies and one 5th-percentile female dummy. If two (or three) 5th-percentile female dummies had been used in your demonstration, instead, you would have illustrated that there is more than ample room for three passengers to sit comfortably on a 53.5-inch bench seat. Also, human beings obviously have more flexibility than the stiff test dummies used in your demonstration. We believe that if you use human subjects in this same experiment (a 95th-percentile male driver and two 5th-percentile female passengers, for example), you will see that three persons can easily and comfortably occupy these bench seats.

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

SINCERELY,

MMC SERVICES INC. July 12, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for Interpretation of "Designated Seating Position" on small pickup truck

Dear Sir:

MMC Services Inc., on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors corporation, would like to have your official interpretation as to "Designated Seating Position" on the small pickup truck, which Mitsubishi Motors corporation has been manufacturing and which has been sold with the name of "Dodge D-50" and "Plymouth Arrow" in U.S.A. marketed by Chrysler corporation. Each one is a derivative from a basic small pickup truck and the dimentions of both trucks are absolutely same.

The bench seat in the pickup truck was originally designed for two persons by the manufacturer and the pickup truck is equipped with a floor gear-shift lever just in front of the seat which has a indented contour for the shift lever.

In the Federal Register/Vol. 44, No. 77/ Thursday, April 19, 1979 "Designated Seating Position" which is applicable from September 1, 1980 is defined as:

"----. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, 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."

And there is a description in the same Federal Register as:

"--- the presence of a floor gear-shift lever would not normally be sufficient to discourage or make use of a center position or a bench seat impossible, even if the bench seat has a slightly indented contour for the shift lever."

According to the two descriptions relating the standard quoted above, the bench seat therefore seems to be for three persons.

However the bench seat on the D50 and Arrow pickup trucks is very uncomfortable with three people. This is evident when considering the position of the floor gear-shift lever. This gear-shift lever provide an impediment to the third person seated in the middle of the bench seat.

NHTSA interpretation is therefore requested as to whether or not the bench seat should not be designated for two persons.

As the data for your interpretation, we attach illustration (Fig. 1), pictures (Fig. 2 (A), (B), (C), (D) ) and sales catalogues for the pickup trucks.

We would appreciate your interpretation of this matter at your earliest convenience.

T. SHIMADA for T. Ohinouye President

cc: GUY HUNTER--OFC. OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, NHTSA Enclosures omitted