Interpretation 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,