Home Page About Us Contribute




Escort, Inc.



Tweets by @CrittendenAuto






By accessing/using The Crittenden Automotive Library/CarsAndRacingStuff.com, you signify your agreement with the Terms of Use on our Legal Information page. Our Privacy Policy is also available there.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

American Government Special Collections Reference Desk

American Government Topics:  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

Christopher A. Hart
Federal Register
August 3, 1994

[Federal Register: August 3, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 91]
RIN 2127-AE48

 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash 
Protection, to require that Type 2 safety belts installed for 
adjustable seats in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 
10,000 pounds or less either be integrated with the vehicle seat or be 
equipped with a means of adjustability to improve the fit and increase 
the comfort of the belt for a variety of different sized occupants. 
NHTSA believes that some occupants who find their safety belts to be 
uncomfortable react to their discomfort either by wearing their safety 
belts incorrectly or by not wearing them at all. NHTSA believes that 
improving safety belt fit will encourage the correct use of safety 
belts and could increase the overall safety belt usage rate.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective 
September 1, 1997.
    Petition Date: Any petitions for reconsideration must be received 
by NHTSA no later than September 2, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
and notice number of this notice and be submitted to: Administrator, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Clarke Harper, Frontal Crash 
Protection Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NRM-12, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4916.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 2503(4) of the ``Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991'' requires the NHTSA to address the matter of 
improved design for safety belts (Pub. L. 102-240). In response to this 
statutory mandate, NHTSA issued an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM) on May 29, 1992, proposing to add safety belt 
``fit'' requirements to FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (57 FR 
22687). The ANPRM listed three rulemaking options and posed ten 
questions. The options included:

A. Take no regulatory action at this time.
B. Adopt detailed regulatory requirements to ensure proper belt fit.
C. Adopt a general requirement that safety belts adjust to fit 
different sized occupants.

    The ten questions asked for information on costs and benefits, and 
for comments on the test procedure. At the same time, NHTSA continued 
research, begun in March 1992, to investigate some of the issues 
associated with belt fit.
    After considering the responses to the ANPRM, and the results of 
the research, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on 
April 26, 1994 (59 FR 21740). A detailed discussion of the responses to 
the ANPRM and of the research can be found in the NPRM. The NPRM 
proposed a general requirement that Type 2 safety belts either be 
integrated with the vehicle seat or be equipped with a means of 
adjustability to improve the fit and increase the comfort of the belt 
for a variety of different sized occupants (collectively referred to in 
the remainder of this notice as the adjustability requirement). As 
explained in the NPRM, NHTSA believes that some occupants who find 
their safety belts to be uncomfortable react to their discomfort either 
by wearing their safety belts incorrectly or by not wearing them at 
all. NHTSA believes that improving safety belt fit will encourage the 
correct use of safety belts and could increase the overall safety belt 
usage rate. A more detailed discussion of the anticipated safety 
benefits can be found in the ANPRM and the NPRM.
    NHTSA received 30 comments in response to the NPRM. In general, 
vehicle manufacturers only marginally concurred with the proposal. Many 
vehicle manufacturers believe that there would be no benefit in 
adopting the requirement because market forces are increasingly 
inducing vehicle manufacturers to voluntarily provide improved 
adjustability in their belt designs. The vehicle manufacturers further 
believe that the requirement would stifle innovation in developing 
other, and perhaps better, designs to improve belt fit. If the agency 
were nevertheless to adopt an adjustability requirement, they wanted 
NHTSA to exclude belts for rear seats and belts in convertibles, and in 
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 
pounds, and to broaden the definitions of the type of adjustability 
devices which may be used. Consumer advocates and some vehicle 
manufacturers wanted the agency to amend the standard to include a 
detailed performance requirement. Equipment and multistage vehicle 
manufacturers wanted more lead time. None of the commenters disputed 
that improving safety belt fit should increase safety belt usage; 
however, the commenters believed that this benefit could not be 
quantified. All of these comments were considered by the agency in 
formulating this final rule, and the most significant comments are 
addressed below.

General v. Detailed Performance Requirement

    Eight commenters stated that a detailed performance requirement 
would be better than the proposed general requirement. One commenter, 
Transport Canada, stated that NHTSA should adopt a performance 
requirement based on the Belt-fit Test Device (BTD), a device developed 
in Canada. The Canadian government has proposed that the BTD be used to 
assess belt fit in Canadian vehicles.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the agency decided not to propose the 
detailed test procedure discussed in the ANPRM because agency research 
indicated that the procedure would not provide an adequate means of 
identifying improper fit on the wide variety of sizes and shapes of 
vehicle occupants. In addition, commenters on the ANPRM raised a number 
of questions concerning the test procedure that the agency has been 
unable to resolve. Since no commenter submitted any information to 
remedy the inadequacies that the agency's research disclosed in the 
ANPRM test procedure, NHTSA still lacks a detailed test procedure whose 
adequacy has been sufficiently supported through agency testing.
    NHTSA appreciates the information submitted by Transport Canada 
regarding the BTD. However, the NPRM did not provide adequate notice to 
permit the agency to adopt a rule based on the BTD. Further, NHTSA does 
not have sufficient experience with the device to consider even 
proposing such a rule at this time. However, the agency will continue 
its coordination with Transport Canada on this issue to attempt to 
harmonize regulatory requirements where possible.
    Vehicle manufacturers stated that the proposed adjustability 
requirement was a design-based standard, and therefore, design 
restrictive. The agency disagrees. The language does not specify the 
use of any particular designs to meet the adjustability requirement. 
Instead, the requirement affords manufacturers broad flexibility in 
designing means of compliance. Manufacturers may comply by providing 
for the adjustability of the anchorage and have a broad choice 
regarding the means for doing so. In addition, the requirement allows 
them to choose other means of compliance. In lieu of anchorage 
adjustability, manufacturers may either integrate the belts with the 
seat or provide a means of automatically moving the webbing in relation 
to the anchorage.
    Accordingly, the agency has decided to adopt the adjustability 
requirement, as proposed, for those seats that are required by this 
final rule to have adjustable belts.
    Vehicle manufacturers also asked the agency to clarify whether 
certain devices would be allowed under the requirement, and, if not, to 
expand the requirement to allow these devices. In response, the agency 
has listed below the various devices mentioned in the comments and 
indicated whether each of those devices is permissible.
    Adjustable Upper Anchorage: An AUA is a device which provides a 
means of adjusting the upper anchorage of the shoulder belt and which 
has at least two distinct positions. This device would comply with the 
adjustability requirement if switching from one adjustment position to 
the other moves the device or webbing at least 5 centimeters, measured 
linearly.
    Floor-mounted Inboard Adjustable Anchorage: This is a device 
similar to an AUA, except that it is mounted on the floor on the 
inboard side of the seat. This device would comply if it has at least 
two distinct adjustment positions, and if switching from one adjustment 
position to the other moves the device or webbing at least 5 
centimeters, measured linearly.
    Integrated Safety Belt Assembly: This is a safety belt system 
anchored completely to the seat structure. For a movable seat, the 
anchorages must be located on a part of the seat above the seat 
adjuster. This system would comply with the adjustability requirement.
    ``Semi-integrated'' Safety Belt Assembly: As described by Ford, 
this is a safety belt system which has the upper anchorage and the 
retractor for the upper torso portion of the Type 2 belt mounted to the 
moving portion of the seat structure. Other commenters mentioned 
similar ``semi-integrated'' designs, including: lower anchorages for 
the upper torso belt mounted on the movable portion of the seat; 
shoulder belt guides; and through-the-seat routing of the safety belt 
webbing. These devices would be allowed if (1) the device is considered 
part of the anchorage and meets the requirements of Standard No. 210, 
Seat Belt Anchorages, and (2) if the movement of the device, measured 
linearly, is at least 5 centimeters. The agency believes that all 
``semi-integrated'' safety belt assemblies which meet the first 
criterion would comply because the movement of the seat would move the 
anchorage component sufficiently to meet the second criterion.
    Sling-Mounted D-Rings: This is a sling-mounted upper shoulder belt 
anchorage D-ring, used to relocate the D-ring closer to the occupant. 
The sling usually rotates freely around the anchorage bolt to permit D-
ring movement. Sling-mounted D-rings designed in this manner do not 
have two distinct adjustment positions and would not comply with the 
adjustability requirement. NHTSA does not believe that a sling-mounted 
D-ring which does not have distinct adjustment positions should be 
allowed as the position of such a device could change due to vehicle 
vibration or occupant movement, resulting in reduced comfort for the 
occupant.
    Ford's comment indicated that some sling-mounted D-rings are 
``fixed and rigid'' and can ``be adjusted to a variety of different 
positions that provide at least 5 centimeters of adjustment.'' Such a 
device would comply with the adjustability requirement.
    Intentional Set Retractor: As described by General Motors, this is 
a safety belt retractor that would permit the introduction of slack in 
the upper torso portion of the safety belt. Such a device could not be 
used to comply with the requirement because the anchorage does not have 
a movable component which has at least two adjustment positions 
(S7.1.2), nor does the design move the webbing in relation to the 
anchorage (S7.1.2.1). Spooling of webbing off the retractor increases 
the amount of webbing in the belt system, but does not move the webbing 
in relation to the anchorage as specified in S7.1.2.1. An example of 
the type of design that would meet the requirements of S7.1.2.1 is the 
Volvo design in which the shoulder belt webbing is fed through a slot 
in the pillar at different angles and in different locations as 
increasing amounts of webbing are spooled off the conical spool of the 
retractor.
    Adjustable Seat Height: Porsche described a system which adjusts 
the seat height relative to a fixed D-ring to be used to comply with 
the adjustability requirement. NHTSA is not amending the language to 
allow the use of this system as a means of compliance. The agency does 
not believe that, in practice, a seat with adjustable height would be 
functionally equivalent to an anchorage with two or more adjustment 
positions. NHTSA believes that occupants use seat adjustability 
primarily as a means of reaching controls and increasing visibility out 
of the vehicle. NHTSA has no evidence, nor did Porsche provide any 
evidence that such a system alone would also be used by motorists to 
provide a better safety belt fit. Moveover, even if motorists did use 
it this way, the optimum seat adjustment for seat belt comfort could 
conflict with optimum seat height for control access and visibility.

Rear Seats

    Thirteen vehicle manufacturers and one association requested that 
belts for rear seats be excluded from the adjustability requirement. 
Some manufacturers stated that the agency's rationale for allowing 
seats with integrated belts as an alternative means of compliance 
(i.e., that integrated belts provide a good fit for a wide range of 
occupants because the upper and lower anchorages maintain a constant 
position relative to the seat) is equally applicable to belts for fixed 
rear seats. Other manufacturers stated that there are very difficult 
design problems involved in installing AUAs for rear seats. One 
commenter, Ford Motor Company, requested an exclusion for belts for all 
non-movable seats (both front and rear) and for seats which move fore-
and-aft only to allow access to other areas.
    In the NPRM, NHTSA explained that it was aware of very few means 
being used to provide adjustability in rear seats. NHTSA requested 
comment on designs that could be used to comply with the proposed 
requirements in the rear seats, the practicability of these designs, 
and the costs of these designs. In response to these questions, many 
comments indicated that there were greater design problems with 
designing rear seats to comply with the adjustability requirement, and 
that compliance was costlier for these seats with little benefit.
    NHTSA agrees with the comments that the anchorages for belts 
installed at a fixed seat will retain a constant position in relation 
to the seat. Fixed seats, especially rear fixed seats, allow 
manufacturers greater flexibility to design the location of the upper 
anchorage to provide a good fit for a wide range of occupants because 
the anchorage does not need to be located out of the way of the seat 
movement. For those seats which have the anchorages on or very near the 
seat (e.g., an upper anchorage on the shelf near the top of a rear seat 
in a passenger car), the belt system should provide a range of fit 
comparable to that provided by an adjustable seat with integrated 
belts.
    While NHTSA is aware that not all fixed seats have the upper 
anchorage on or near the seat, NHTSA notes that requiring adjustability 
of belts whose anchorages are not on or near fixed rear seats would not 
solve the belt fit problems of many of the occupants of those seats. 
The majority of fixed seats are rear seats, which are more commonly 
occupied by children than adults. As noted in the NPRM, NHTSA's 
research indicated a significantly lower percentage of both non-
adjustable and adjustable belts were within the comfort zone for the 
six-year-old dummy than for the adult dummies. This suggests that this 
rulemaking cannot solve the belt fit problems of children and that 
other means, such as booster seats, must be used to provide comfortable 
belt fit for children. Further, one commenter, a child seat 
manufacturer, expressed concern that if belts were integrated with rear 
seats, those belts could not be used to secure a child seat.
    For these reasons, NHTSA has decided to exclude fixed seats from 
the adjustability requirement. NHTSA also agrees with Ford Motor 
Company that this exclusion should also apply to a seat which can be 
adjusted to provide access to other areas, but is otherwise fixed. 
NHTSA has therefore drafted this exclusion accordingly.

Convertibles

    Three vehicle manufacturers asked the agency to exclude 
convertibles from the adjustability requirement. These manufacturers 
stated that the requirement was impracticable for these vehicles, since 
convertibles do not have a B-pillar and therefore cannot accommodate 
AUAs. These manufacturers further argued that, while the proposal 
permits the use of other designs which could be used in convertibles to 
comply with the adjustability requirement, electing these options would 
greatly increase the cost of compliance.
    Besides AUAs, other options for convertible seats include 
integrated safety belt assemblies, and ``semi-integrated'' seat belt 
assemblies. NHTSA estimates that providing an AUA costs $3.12 per 
seating position, while integrated belts cost $38.15 each, and ``semi-
integrated'' belts cost $0.43 each.
    After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has decided not to exclude 
convertibles from the adjustability requirement. While NHTSA agrees 
that manufacturers of convertibles may not be able to use AUAs, there 
are other options, some of which are less expensive than AUAs.

Voluntarily Installed Type 2 Belts

    Heavy truck manufacturers, one of their belt suppliers, and motor 
home manufacturers expressed concern that the proposed regulatory 
language was broad enough to include Type 2 belts that had been 
voluntarily installed in vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 
pounds. Motor vehicle manufacturers were similarly concerned that the 
regulatory language included Type 2 belts voluntarily installed at 
seating positions in other types of vehicles (e.g., center seating 
positions).
    NHTSA intended the adjustability requirement to apply to seating 
positions for which Standard No. 208 requires a Type 2 belt, but not to 
seating positions for which Standard No. 208 provides a choice of 
either a Type 1 or a Type 2 belt. Among the seating positions for which 
the Standard provides this choice are all seating positions in vehicles 
with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, and center seating positions in 
vehicles with a GVWR of not more than 10,000 pounds. For all of these 
seating positions, the choice of a Type 2 belt is voluntary. Under this 
final rule, a Type 2 belt that is voluntarily installed in any vehicle 
need not comply with the adjustability requirement.

Owner's Manual

    Three commenters addressed the issue of requiring information on 
the use of manual AUAs in the owner's manual. Two commenters supported 
an owner's manual insert. One manufacturer stated that clarification 
was needed on whether the information must be provided for belts 
mounted on the seat frame so that they move with the seat. The agency 
has clarified the informational requirement in S7.1.2 so that it more 
clearly applies only if the belt system includes the movable component 
required by that paragraph.

Effective Date

    Every vehicle manufacturer requested additional leadtime to make 
the design changes required by this rule. Some manufacturers stated 
that an effective date of September 1, 1997 would better correspond to 
the date on which air bags will be mandatory. Other requests ranged 
from 2 years to a request for a four-year phase-in beginning at least 5 
years after publication. The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association 
(RVIA) and Bornemann Products Incorporated (Bornemann) requested an 
additional two years leadtime after the effective date for vehicles 
manufactured in two or more stages.
    After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has decided to extend the 
effective date to September 1, 1997. The agency believes it would be 
more practicable to closely parallel the schedule for vehicle redesign 
required for the implementation of manual belts and air bags. 
Manufacturers will then be able to avoid redesign of the anchorage 
systems for two safety belt-related rules. By this date, 100 percent of 
passenger cars and 80 percent of light trucks must be equipped with 
manual belts and air bags.
    While NHTSA agrees that redesigning some vehicles will be 
difficult, many commenters stated that all or most of their vehicles 
will have an adjustment feature before this date. In addition, NHTSA 
notes that many of the requests for longer extensions were based on 
compliance difficulties for rear seats. Therefore, NHTSA has decided 
that longer extensions are not necessary.
    NHTSA has also decided not to allow additional leadtime for 
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. There are questions about 
the sufficiency of the agency's authority to grant relief to vehicles 
based on their method of production instead of their type; however, the 
agency need not address those questions in this final rule.
    Bornemann and RVIA requested additional leadtime because there is 
no assurance that engineering information or prototype vehicles would 
be available in time for final stage manufacturers to comply with the 
adjustability requirement by the same date as single stage 
manufacturers. The commenters are concerned that, due to the lack of 
leadtime and lack of early information from vehicle manufacturers, they 
would be forced to install integrated seats to comply with the proposed 
adjustability requirement.
    The agency believes these concerns are unwarranted for numerous 
reasons. First, as discussed above, the agency has provided an 
additional year leadtime beyond that proposed. Because NHTSA 
anticipates that many vehicles will comply before the effective date, 
this should allow first stage manufacturers additional time to divulge 
design information to final stage manufacturers. Second, the apparent 
trend in the industry is to provide AUAs in incomplete vehicles. Since 
the upper anchorage is not a component that is normally modified by 
final stage manufacturers, there would be no additional requirement or 
burden on the final stage manufacturers. Third, if neither of the 
previous reasons provide relief, final stage manufacturers have options 
other than integrated seats in designing vehicles to comply with the 
adjustability requirement. For example, a ``semi-integrated'' safety 
belt assembly in which the lower inboard anchorage is mounted on the 
moving portion of the seat can be provided by the seat manufacturer and 
is in the same magnitude of price as an AUA.
    RVIA also stated that additional leadtime was necessary if the 
agency did not exclude motor homes and rear seats. This request is 
largely moot. As explained previously, the adjustability requirement 
does not apply to voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belts. The 
agency's decision to exclude voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belts 
makes it unnecessary to adopt RVIA's request to exclude motor homes. 
Many motor homes have a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. Thus, the Type 
2 belts in those motor homes are all voluntarily installed belts. For 
motor homes with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, the modifications 
made to the front seating positions are not different than other van 
conversions. Finally, the agency's decision to exclude fixed seats has 
effectively excluded rear seats.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies 
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been 
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA estimates 
that the annual economic impact of this final rule will be between $44 
and $61 million. A Final Regulatory Evaluation has been prepared for 
this final rule and is available in the docket for this notice.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. By not including the rear seat of vehicles, the agency 
believes that the small businesses involved in altering vehicles, van 
conversions, and multi-stage manufacturing will have little difficulty 
meeting the standard. Most of the companies perform very few changes to 
the front of the vehicle. Van converters may change the seats, but they 
typically use the anchorage points provided by the original 
manufacturer of the front seat. Those manufacturers that start with 
incomplete vehicles will have to add and certify anchorages. However, 
either seats with seat-frame mounted anchorages or adjustable upper 
anchorages will be on the market and these manufacturers should not 
have difficulty certifying compliance.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated 
with this final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has also analyzed this final rule under the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have a 
significant impact on the human environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this rule 
will not have significant federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166, 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.208 is amended by redesignating existing S7.1.2 and 
S7.1.3, as S7.1.3 and S7.1.4, and adding new S7.1.2, S7.1.2.1, and 
S7.1.2.2, to read as follows:


Sec. 571.208  Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection

* * * * *
    S7.1.2  Except as provided in S7.1.2.1 and S7.1.2.2, for each Type 
2 seat belt assembly which is required by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 
571.208), the upper anchorage, or the lower anchorage nearest the 
intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt, shall include a 
movable component which has a minimum of two adjustment positions. The 
distance between the geometric center of the movable component at the 
two extreme adjustment positions shall be not less than five 
centimeters, measured linearly. If the component required by this 
paragraph must be manually moved between adjustment positions, 
information shall be provided in the owner's manual to explain how to 
adjust the seat belt and warn that misadjustment could reduce the 
effectiveness of the safety belt in a crash.
    S7.1.2.1  As an alternative to meeting the requirement of S7.1.2, a 
Type 2 seat belt assembly shall provide a means of automatically moving 
the webbing in relation to either the upper anchorage, or the lower 
anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt. 
The distance between the midpoint of the webbing at the contact point 
of the webbing and the anchorage at the extreme adjustment positions 
shall be not less than five centimeters, measured linearly.
    S7.1.2.2  The requirements of S7.1.2 do not apply the anchorages of 
a Type 2 seat belt assembly installed:
    (a) at a seat which is adjustable fore and aft while the vehicle is 
in motion and whose seat frame above the fore-and-aft adjuster is part 
of each of the assembly's seat belt anchorages, as defined in S3 of 
Standard No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210).
    (b) at a seat that is not adjustable fore and aft while the vehicle 
is in motion.
* * * * *
    Issued on July 28, 1994.
Christopher A. Hart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-18812 Filed 8-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

Connect with The Crittenden Automotive Library

The Crittenden Automotive Library at Google+ The Crittenden Automotive Library on Facebook The Crittenden Automotive Library on Instagram The Crittenden Automotive Library at The Internet Archive The Crittenden Automotive Library on Pinterest The Crittenden Automotive Library on Twitter The Crittenden Automotive Library on Tumblr
 


The Crittenden Automotive Library

Home Page    About Us    Contribute