Interpretation ID: aiam3794
Assistant Vice President
Engineering Services Division
United States Testing Company
Inc.
1415 Park Avenue
Hoboken
NJ 07030;
Dear Mr. Pepe: This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 209, *Sea Belt Assemblies*. You asked several questions about the requirements applicable to a Type 2 Vehicle Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractor utilizing a tension reducer device. The particular device you are concerned about is, according to your letter, activated by the vehicle door. With the door open the mechanism operates in a high tension mode, with the door closed the mechanism is in a low tension mode.; By way of background information, this agency does not grant approval of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Safety Standard No. 209 specifies requirements concerning minimum an maximum retraction force. Requirements are specified for both initial retraction force and retraction force after a test sequence which includes lengthy retractor cycling. See sections S4.3(j), (k) and S5.2(k).; As you know, retractors have traditionally had only one rather than tw tension modes. Standard No. 209 does not prohibit a design with two tension modes. However, as written, the standard's requirements do not distinguish between tension modes.; We agree with your suggestion that both tension modes should be teste for retraction force effort as specified in the standard. However, we do not agree with your suggestion that the high tension mode should only be tested for minimum retraction force and low tension mode for maximum retraction force. Instead, because Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, we interpret the standard to require that all of its requirements must be met in both tension modes. For example, under section S4.3(j)(6), both tension modes must exert a retractive force within the 0.2 to 1.5 pound range. For testing purposes, of course, a single retractor could only be fully tested for one of the two modes, since testing for both modes would involve twice the amount of cycling required by the standard.; Your letter states that since the high tension mode is used only fo stowing the webbing and not in operation during normal use, you believe that only cycling tests without lock-ups should be performed in testing. While we appreciate this argument, the standard, as written, does not permit that exception. Section S5.2(k) states in relevant part:; >>>...An emergency-locking retractor or a nonlocking retractor attache to upper torso restraint shall be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension. The locking mechanism of an emergency locking retractor shall be actuated at least 10,000 times within 50 to 100 percent extension of webbing during the 50,000 cycles....<<<; Since the standard does not distinguish between tension modes, lock-up should be performed in testing for both the low and high tension modes.; As already noted, the retractor in question represents a new desig which was not specifically considered in drafting Standard No. 209. If the standard as written creates problems, the manufacturer may wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking to amend the standard to establish special test procedures.; Your letter suggests that there may be a conflict between sectio S7.4.2 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 209's 0.2 pound retraction force requirement (section S4.3(j)). However, section S7.4.2 of Standard No. 208 only applies to automatic belt systems, while section S5.3(j) of Standard No. 209 only applies to active belt systems. Therefore, there can be no conflict.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel