Interpretation ID: 86-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David E. Martin -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, GM

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation 30400 Mound Road Warren, MI 48090-9015

Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1985, to Administrator Steed 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 the requirements of S4.1.1 of the standard which requires the installation of "seat 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 existing 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 an 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 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. 205. You said that a manual belt attached to anchorages within Standard No. 201's zone might not meet Standard No. 208's occupant protection requirements.

Finally, you said that the cost impact of providing the additional 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 issues 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 his 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. 203. 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 and 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 54 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 uses...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, we 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

USG 2421

July 30, 1985

The Honorable Diane Steed Administrator -- NHTSA

Docket 74-14, Notice 38

Dear Ms. Steed:

General Motors is currently developing new vehicle models which will be introduced concurrent with, or after, the start of the passive restraint phase-in period. This has necessitated a review of NHTSA FMVSS interpretations as they would apply to seat belt restraint systems. It is apparent from that review that several previous NHTSA interpretations do not comprehend current automatic seat belt technology.

Of specific concern to General Motors is NHTSA documentation which suggests that automatic seat belts are experimental and, therefore, not "Type 2" seat belts for the purposes of S4.1.1. of FMVSS 210. Without assurance that the position set forth in these NHTSA documents is no longer considered current by the agency, a manufacturer is faced with the prospect of having to add manual seat belt anchors into a vehicle even though automatic seat belts are to be installed.

1 A NHTSA position that additional manual belt anchors were necessary because of the "experimental" nature of automatic seat belts was first noted in Docket 72-23, Notice 5 (43 FR 53440, dated November 27, 1978) which granted a petition by General Motors to exempt automatic belts from the anchorage location requirements in FMVSS 210. Most recently, the agency in its January 29, 1985 response to a letter from the Daihatsu Motor Company regarding the redundant anchor requirement reiterated that, "The exemption was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs."

While NHTSA's position that automatic seat belts are "experimental" was perhaps appropriate in 1978, we believe that a change is warranted in light of design developments and recent regulatory initiatives. Significant field experience has been gained over the last decade with automatic belt designs, e.g. the VW Rabbit and GM Chevette. In addition, FMVSS 208 rulemaking responses suggest that many manufacturers are currently developing such belt systems in anticipation of the passive restraint requirements. Finally, concern for public reaction to automatic seat belts, which is basic to the agency's use of the term "experimental" was discounted by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in its July 17, 1984 final rule (Docket 74-14, Notice 36). Noting that most, if not all manufacturers, would be expected to use detachable automatic seatbelts, DOT stated that, "Detachable belts should alleviate some consumer concerns about automatic belts."

The aforementioned NHTSA letters of interpretation notwithstanding, there is existing regulatory language which General Motors believes supports a position that S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210 is satis-fied if a passenger car is equipped with any belt restraint system meeting the performance requirements of FMVSS 208. Most compelling is the fact that the definition of a "Type 2" belt assembly, as set forth in S3 of FMVSS 209, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints. The definition does not differentiate between manual and automatic belt systems. Further, S4.3 (j) of FMVSS 209 states that the requirements of that section apply to Type 1 and Type 2 belt systems. This has been interpreted by the agency to include both manual and automatic seat belt systems. (See NHTSA letter of interpretation to Volkswagon, dated August 7, 1981.)

A review of FMVSS 210 regulatory history also supports a position that seat belt performance is neither assured nor necessarily limited by anchor locations. While vehicles equipped with manual belts meeting the existing anchorage location requirements of S4.3.1 of FMVSS 210 have demonstrated excellent performance in the field, this experience should not be interpreted as establishing that other anchorage locations would not have produced equally good results. In fact a parametric study by General Motors, which was provided to NHTSA in 1979 (USG 1763), suggests that specific vehicle interior parameters, such as occupant proximity to steering columns, instrument panel, etc., could have more influence on measured dummy data than some of the restraint parameters. A copy of that study is attached.

While the above discussion deals with the regulatory aspects of S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210, there are additional compelling reasons for a new interpretation of that section. These reasons are based on practical implications as well as recent rulemaking actions that bear on the existing interpretations.

Most importantly, the redundant anchors would very likely never be used. It is highly improbable that a customer would demand an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle "B" pillar, if a door anchored belt were available from the manufacturer as a replacement for the OEM automatic seat belt. This would be true whether or not the passive restraint requirements were eventually rescinded. As noted in General Motors' response to Docket 74-14; Notice 36 (USG 2284), automatic seat belt designs would need to be detachable to ensure public acceptability. As a result, a detachable automatic seat belt design would also be usable as a manual seat belt. (See Attachment 6 of USG 22B4). This "convertibility" feature would be expected to further reduce the likelihood of replacement.

The redundant seat belt anchor issue is clouded by NHTSA's recent manual belt dynamic test proposal in Docket 74-14, Notice 38. If enacted, that proposal would provide manual belts with the same exemption from the anchorage location requirements in FMVSS 210 now afforded automatic belts. This would allow manufacturers to find an optimum anchor location for manual belt systems on the basis of best overall performance. With this scenario, the S4.1.1 requirement in FMVSS 210 becomes even more inappropriate in that it may not reflect a belt anchor location needed to meet the FMVSS 208 injury criteria.

General Motors is concerned that cost factors may have been understated and this may have misled NHTSA regarding the need for a review of the current S4.1.1 interpretation. This is suggested by the agency's denial of a 1981 Toyo Kogyo petition (46 FR 54391) wherein it was stated that, ".the cost increase associated with these additional anchorages is minimal at best". 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.

In summary, it is General Motors view that the requirements of S4.1.1 in FMVSS 210 would be satisfied by the vehicle seat belt anchors utilized by any belt restraint system that meets the performance requirements of FMVSS 208 and requests that the agency issue an interpretation to that effect. That interpretation would acknowledge that a three-point automatic belt qualifies as a Type 2 belt; therefore, additional anchors would not be required. If such interpretation is not possible, General Motors requests notification of that fact and further requests that this letter be treated as a petition for amendment of S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210 in a manner which supports General Motors view, as set forth above.

Sincerely,

David E. Martin, Director Automotive Safety Engineering cc: B. Felrice G. Hunter S. Esch Docket 74-14, Notice 38