Interpretation ID: nht90-3.88

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rembert Ryals

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 from R. Ryals to S. Krapzke (OCC 5063); Also attached to letter dated 9-12-79 from F. Berndt (signature by S.P. Wood) to F. Pepe (Std. 209)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff in which you asked for an interpretation of tbe requirements of Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.208 and S571.209, respectively). Specif ically, you asked whether manufacturers were required to install a lap belt at seating positions equipped with automatic belts certified as complying with the occupant protection requirements in Standard No. 208. Your letter indicated that you were part icularly interested in the requirements that applied to 1980 model year cars. The answer to your question is no.

S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating posit ions, safety 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 positi ons 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 safety belt at every seating position, h ave 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 safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. All cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be certified as complying with Option 1.

However, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 contains an important proviso. This provides that an automatic belt system may be used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option set forth in S4.1.2 and in place of any safety belt system that would othe rwise be required by that option.

I have enclosed a copy of the December 14, 1971 rule (36 FR 23725) that added the current version of S4.5.3 to Standard No. 208.

In telephone conversations with you, Mr. Kratzke has explained that there is no requirement in the Federal safety standards that seating positions equipped with automatic belts include a lap belt either as part of the automatic belt or as a separate manu al belt. Your letter indicates that you believe that two regulatory provisions appear to require a lap belt in 1980 Volkswagens at seating positions equipped with an automatic shoulder belt and knee bolsters.

First, you suggested that Option I (S4.1.2.1) of Standard No. 208 requires automobiles to meet lateral and rollover crash protection requirements, in addition to providing automatic protection in frontal crashes. This is an erroneous reading of S4.1.2.1 (c). Manufacturers have the cboice of certifying compliance with the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements (S4.1.2.1(c)(1)) or of providing manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that the vehicle meets the protecti on requirement with a test dummy protected by both tbe safety belt and the automatic protection system (S4.1.2.1(c)(2)). When this latter option is chosen, the vehicle manufacturer could use the automatic safety belt in place of the specified manual saf ety belt, in accordance with the provisions of S4.5.3. Hence, a manufacturer could certify compliance with Option I without providing a manual lap belt at seating positions equipped with an automatic shoulder belt and knee bolsters.

It is not clear, however, that Volkswagen chose to certify that its cars complied with Option I in Standard No. 208. In a January 30, 1974 notice (39 FR 3834; copy enclosed), NHTSA indicated its understanding that the Volkswagen automatic belts were cer tified as complying with Option 2. In that notice, the agency stated that S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 "permits the use of the Volkswagen passive belt system to meet the perpendicular impact protection requirements of option two and to replace the require d seat belt assemblies." If Volkswagen certified its vehicles as complying with Option 2, the requirements of Option 1 would not be relevant.

Second, you noted that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CPR S571.209) specifies that a seat belt assembly "shall provide pelvic restraint (i.e., a lap belt) whether or not upper torso restraint is provided, ..." You suggested that t he Volkswagen belt system without a lap belt does not appear to comply with this requirement of Standard No. 209.

As Mr. Kratzke explained to you in your telephone conversation, the applicability of Standard No. 209 to crash-tested automatic belts is addressed in S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208. That provision in Standard No. 208 provides that automatic belts that are not required to meet the crash protection requirements shall conform to the webbing, attachment hardware, and assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The agency explained this provision as follows in the 1971 notice that added this langu age to Standard No. 208, "On reconsideration, the NHTSA has decided tbat relief from Standard No. 209 should be afforded if a passive belt is capable of meeting the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 in a frontal perpendicular impact and amen ds S4.5.3 accordingly." 36 FR 23725; December 14, 1971. Thus, automatic belts that are certified as complying with the occupant crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are not generally subject to the requirements of Standard No. 209.

In a September 12, 1979 letter from this office to Mr. Frank Pepe (copy enclosed), NHTSA explained that automatic belts must meet the adjustment requirements of S7.1 of Standard No. 208 and those parts of Standard No.

209 that are incorporated by reference in S7.1 of Standard No. 208. That letter also noted that automatic belts installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements are exempted from all other requirements of

Standard No. 209 by virtue of S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208. Since S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is not incorporated by reference in S7.1 of Standard No. 208, seating positions equipped with automatic belts that are certified as complying with the frontal crash protection requirements are not required to provide lap belts either as part of the automatic belt or as a separate manual belt.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.