Interpretation ID: aiam4094
Director
Automotive Safety Engineering
General Motors Corporation
30400 Mound Road
Warren
MI 48090- 9015;
Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1985, to Administrator Stee concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in our response.; You asked the agency to reconsider its interpretation of th requirements of S4.1.1 of the standard which requires the installation of '(s)eat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly' at certain positions in motor vehicles. You specifically asked that we issue a new interpretation that S4.1.1 is satisfied by installation of safety belt anchorages utilized by a safety belt meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You also asked that if a new interpretation could not be issued, then the agency should treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking. As discussed below, the agency believes that the change you seek can only be made by a rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, as you requested, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking, which is granted.; You offered several arguments in support of your view that the existin language of S4.1.1 is satisfied if a passenger car is equipped with anchorages for safety belts meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You noted that the definition of a Type 2 safety belt assembly set forth in S3 of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints and does not differentiate between manual and automatic belts. You also noted that S4.3(j) of Standard No. 209 applies to Type 1 and Type 2 belts and that the agency has interpreted section S4.3(j) to apply to both automatic and manual safety belts.; You also argued that redundant anchorages would not be used since a owner would not purchase an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle 'B' pillar, if a door-anchored safety belt were available from the manufacturer. You said this would be particularly true of the door-mounted detachable automatic safety belts General Motors intends to use. In addition, you pointed out that the agency's April 1985 proposal to require dynamic testing of manual belts also supports the elimination of the requirement for additional anchorages. You noted that the agency proposed that dynamically-tested manual belts would be exempt from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210. Thus, a manufacturer may have anchorages outside of Standard No. 210 location zones, but the automatic belts attached to the anchorages would meet the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You said that a manual belt attached to anchorages within Standard No. 210's zone might not meet Standard No. 208's occupant protection requirements.; Finally, you said that the cost impact of providing the additiona anchorages is not minimal. You said that 'the cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints.'; While we believe that you have raised a number of important issue concerning the current requirements of Standard No. 210, we believe that given the specific language of S4.1.1, any change to those requirements can only be made through a rulemaking proceeding. Standard No. 210, as currently written, specifically refers to providing anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt. The agency has consistently recognized a distinction between Type 2 belts and automatic belts. That distinction is based on a comparison of the design features of a two point automatic belt with those of a Type 2 lap/shoulder safety belt. Standard No. 209 defines a seat belt assembly as 'a strap, webbing, or similar device' used to secure a person in a crash. Under Standard No. 209, a Type 2 seat belt assembly is defined as a strap, webbing or similar device which provides 'pelvic and upper torso restraint.' Thus, a Type 2 safety belt provides webbing to restrain both the pelvis and upper torso and requires three anchorages to be installed. In contrast, an automatic belt can use webbing to provide upper torso restraint, which would require two anchorages to install, and not have webbing to restrain the pelvis. Instead, a two point automatic belt relies on non-belt technology, such as a knee bolster, to restrain movement of the pelvis.; The agency recognized the design distinctions between Type 2 belts an automatic belts by specifically providing a separate definition of automatic belt in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208. In addition, the agency recognized a distinction between automatic and Type 2 belts by specifying in Standard No. 208 that an automatic belt may be used 'in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by' S4 of the standard. The other seat belt assemblies required by S4 are Type 1 and Type 2 systems. To further contrast the distinction between automatic belts and Type 2 belts, S4.5.3.1 of Standard No. 208 specifically provides that 'an automatic belt that provides only pelvic restraint may not be used...to meet the requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option.'; Given these distinctions between a Type 2 and an automatic belt, w believe that the reference to a Type 2 belt in S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires us to retain our current interpretation of that provision. However, we do believe you have raised important questions about whether that provision should be changed. We expect to begin rulemaking shortly on this issue.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel