nht89-1.34 | NHTSA

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/89

FROM: Anonymous (confidential)

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION S.W.

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATIONS OF FMVSS 203 AND 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/05/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 203; STANDARD 208; STANDARD 210

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of [the manufacturer], we hereby submit this request for interpretations of FMVSS 203 (49 C.F.R. @ 571.203) and FMVSS 210 (49 C.F.R. @ 571.210). Although the reasons for the requested interpretations involve the same technological developme nt (as discussed further below), and to some extent involve related issues, our request for interpretation of FMVSS 203 should be regarded as separate and distinct from the request for interpretation of FMVSS 210.

Due to various considerations involving [the manufacturer's] production scheduling, we would greatly appreciate your response to this request by April 15, 1989.

We hereby request confidential treatment of the manufacturer's and its counsel's identity. Because the technological development discussed herein is competitively sensitive, disclosure could result in substantial competitive harm to the manufacturer. We have provided herewith a copy of this request, with the manufacturer's and counsel's identity and related information deleted, for placement in the public file.

Summary of FMVSS 203 Interpretation Requested

For the reasons set forth below, we request that your office issue an interpretation that the requirements of FMVSS 203 do not apply to a vehicle which is equipped with a driver-side air bag and automatic seat belt and which meets the frontal crash re quirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1 when both systems are operational in the requisite FMVSS 208 compliance testing.

Reason for the Request

[The manufacturer] is in the process of developing an occupant restraint system which will utilize both a driver-side air bag and a driver-side automatic seat belt. Because of the particular design aspects of the

3 [manufacturer's] air bag technology (specifically with respect to the steering column structure), it will likely be impossible for the [manufacturer] vehicle to meet the requirements of FMVSS 203. Therefore, in order for [the manufacturer] to utilize its intended air bag system, it will be necessary that FMVSS 203's requirements do not apply.

The [manufacturer's] vehicle equipped with the aforementioned air bag technology will satisfy the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1, whether or not the automatic seat belt is operational during testing. Therefore, in our opinion, the requi rements of FMVSS 203 clearly do not apply, since section S2 of FMVSS 203 indicates that FMVSS 203 does not apply to vehicles that conform to the requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1 "by means of other than seat belt assemblies" (e.g., an air bag). However, d uring informal discussions with NHTSA on this subject, questions were raised whether the FMVSS 203, S2 language "other than seat belt assemblies" could literally be satisfied where the vehicle was compliance-tested with both the air bag and seat belt sys tem fully functional, which is the manner in which NHTSA conducts such testing. Therefore, we are requesting your confirmation that our aforementioned understanding as to the inapplicability of FMVSS 203 is correct.

Discussion

FMVSS 203 originally did not contemplate the presence of both seat belts and an air bag in a motor vehicle. The exception language of section S2 was thereafter promulgated specifically in order to allow the development of air bag technology, since th e manufacturer in that instance could not meet FMVSS 203 requirements with its air bag technology. See 39 Fed. Reg. 34062 (1974); 40 Fed. Reg. 17952 (1975). Therefore, as a result of S2, so long as the vehicle equipped with the air bag (i.e., "by means of other than a seat beat assembly") conformed with the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1, FMVSS 203 would not apply.

There are several reasons why the requested interpretation should be issued. First, as indicated previously, [the manufacturer] cannot meet the FMVSS 203 requirements when its air bag technology is used. Therefore, the objective which [the manufactur er] seeks in this request is precisely that for which FMVSS 203, S2 was established.

Secondly, to read the S2 language so that FMVSS 203's requirements would not apply where a vehicle with an air bag conforms with FMVSS 208, S5.1, but would apply where a vehicle

5 is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic belt, is an entirely perverse result. Such a result would be inconsistent with the specific and unequivocal intent of FMVSS S2 (i.e., to permit development and use of air bag technology), and would als o be contrary to the overall FMVSS safety objectives since it would in effect penalize a manufacturer for designing a vehicle with both an air bag and an automatic belt system.

Such a result, moreover, would make it impossible for a manufacturer of a vehicle equipped with an air bag and an automatic belt ever to qualify for the FMVSS 203, S2 exception if the manufacturer compliance-tested its vehicles with both the air bag a nd automatic belt system in place, as NHTSA would do in its compliance testing. Again, this clearly is contrary to the intent of FMVSS 203, S2, and would have the anomalous result of making that exception unattainable by manufacturers whose air bag equi pped vehicles meet FMVSS 208, S5.1, but who also choose to utilize an automatic belt system.

Finally, it should be reiterated that since the [manufacturer's] vehicle equipped with the air bag system will meet S5.1 of FMVSS 208, with or without the automatic seat belt, the automatic seat belt system will not be necessary in order for the vehic le to meet the S5.1 requirements. In

6 effect, then, with respect to frontal crash requirements, the automatic belt system can be viewed as an entirely additional system. Since this additional system in no way detracts from the safety functioning of the air bag, its presence should not aff ect the availability of the FMVSS 203, S2 exception. n1

n1 NHTSA has repeatedly indicated that where a safety system complies with applicable FMVSS requirements, the presence of an additional safety component or system does not alter the compliance result if the additional component or system does not detr act from the original system's ability to meet FMVSS requirements. See, e.g., Letter to Mr. Francois Louis, Renault USA, from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, December 1, 1986.

Summary of FMVSS 210 Interpretation Requested

We request that your office issue an interpretation that the seat belt anchorages in a vehicle equipped with a driver-side air bag and automatic seat belt be exempt from the seat belt anchorage location requirements of FMVSS 210, S4.3, where the vehic le so equipped meets the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1.

Reason for the Request

[The manufacturer's] vehicles equipped with both the air bag and automatic belt systems will not be able to meet the seat belt anchorage location requirements of FMVSS 210, S4.3.

It also appears unlikely that [the manufacturer] would be able to certify, for purposes of FMVSS 210, S4.3, that the "seat belt assemblies" would meet FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements. The vehicles will, however, meet the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements when t he vehicles are compliance-tested as equipped with both the seat belt and air bag systems. (In fact, as indicated previously, the vehicles would meet FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements whether or not the seat belts were operational.) The interpretation diffic ulty arises because, although FMVSS 208, S5.1 is a vehicle performance requirement, the language in FMVSS 210, S4.3 which exempts automatic seat belt anchorages from the FMVSS 210 location requirements refers to "seat belt assemblies" that meet the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements. Therefore, even if a vehicle equipped with the air bag and automatic belt met the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements in compliance testing, the language of FMVSS 210, S4.3 could be read (we believe erroneously) as requiring certificati on that the "belt assemblies" separately meet FMVSS 208, S5.1.

Discussion

The zone location requirements in Standard 210 were developed primarily for conventional manual seat belt systems. The exemption from the location requirements was 8 thereafter introduced in order to facilitate development of passive (i.e., "automatic") seat belt systems. See 43 Fed. Reg. 22419 (1978); 43 Fed. Reg. 53440 (1978). NHTSA determined at that time that if the frontal crash protection requirements of FM VSS 208, S5.1 were met utilizing automatic belt systems, the seat belt anchorage location requirements would not apply.

It is apparent that when the FMVSS 210 anchorage location exemption was promulgated, it was contemplated that the FMVSS 208, S5.1 frontal crash requirements would be met through use of the seat belt system. In other words, the manufacturer seeking ex emption from the location requirements would be utilizing the automatic belt system as the means of meeting the FMVSS 208, S5.1 frontal crash requirements. It was not contemplated that the manufacturer might be intending for its vehicles to meet the fro ntal crash requirements of Standard 208 by an additional or different means, such as an air bag.

[The manufacturer] submits that when a vehicle equipped with an air bag and an automatic belt system meets the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirement, the location requirements of FMVSS 210 should not apply to the automatic belt system. Section 210, of course, d oes not require use of seat belts to meet FMVSS

9 208, S5.1 requirements, nor does Standard 208 itself require use of seat belts to meet frontal crash requirements. If the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 208 can be met in compliance testing by a vehicle equipped with an air bag mechanism and an automat ic belt system (as is the case with [the manufacturer's] vehicles), the manufacturer should not have to certify that the "seat belt assemblies" meet the 208 frontal crash requirements in order to qualify for the S4.3 location requirement exemption. This interpretation is all the more appropriate in [the manufacturer's] case since, as discussed previously, the [manufacturer's] vehicles would meet FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements with or without the automatic belt. n2

n2 As indicated previously, with respect to the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1, the automatic seat belt system in [the manufacturer's] vehicles can be viewed as an entirely additional system which is not necessary for the vehicle to mee t FMVSS 208 frontal crash requirements.

The above interpretation is fully consistent with the intent of FMVSS 208 and FMVSS 210 and with NHTSA's past practice in construing the pertinent subsections of these standards. In interpreting the applicability of FMVSS 208, NHTSA has long emphasiz ed that FMVSS 208 is a broadly stated vehicle performance standard which can be met by any of a variety of occupant restraint systems. For example, in a

10 recent interpretation request, Mercedes Benz requested confirmation that

the vehicle or vehicles used [in compliance testing] may be equipped "as delivered" for sale to a consumer. Accordingly, the vehicle structure with built-in energy management features, seats with designed-in anti-submarining construction, energy abso rbing instrument panel, collapsible steering wheel, driver and/or passenger airbag(s), anti-lacerative windshield glass, emergency tensioning retractors, etc. may be installed and functional, where applicable, during the compliance crash test.

Letter from Mr. K. Faber, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc., to Erika Z.

Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Apr. 20, 1987, p. 1.

NHTSA's response expressly confirmed the accuracy of the proffered interpretation with respect to FMVSS 208 in relation to FMVSS 210:

In conducting these [frontal crash] compliance tests, NHTSA tests 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 f or the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equipment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning. If our

11 compliance testing shows that a vehicle tested with a manual safety belt at one or both front outboard seating positions complies with the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, then the anchorages for the belt or belts wo uld not be subject to the anchorage location requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 210.

Letter to Mr. K. Faber, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc., from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Mar. 14, 1988, p. 2 (emphasis supplied).

The above NHTSA response indicates clearly that if a "vehicle" complies with FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements, then the seat belt anchorage location requirements of FMVSS 210 do not have to be met. This is, we submit, the only logical reading of the inte rrelation of FMVSS 208, S5.1 and FMVSS 210, S4.3. (Since FMVSS 210, S4.3 refers expressly to FMVSS 208, S5.1, these regulations must, of course, be read together.) Since it is evident that in a compliance test of a vehicle equipped with an air bag and a n automatic seat belt, it would be impracticable if not impossible to determine precisely how FMVSS 208, S5.1 was met (i.e., by which safety component or combination thereof), the FMVSS 210, S4.3 exemption should apply so long as the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requ irements are met. The above position is also fully consistent with the fact that FMVSS 208 permits manufacturers to use various means (including means in addition to or other than seat belts) to

12 satisfy frontal crash requirements and the corollary fact that FMVSS 208, as NHTSA has consistently stated, is a vehicle (not a component) performance standard. This position is also squarely supported by NHTSA's expressed rationale that the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208 "indirectly control" the FMVSS 210 anchorage location requirements and "indirectly test" the "same aspects of performance." See 43 Fed. Reg. 53440 (1978); 50 Fed. Reg. 14595 (1985).

As indicated above, [the manufacturer's] vehicles, when tested "as delivered" to the consumer, will comply with the FMVSS 208, S5.1 frontal crash requirements. Since the location exemption of FMVSS 210, S4.3 focuses solely on frontal crash requiremen ts, the exemption should be available if the vehicle complies with FMVSS 208, S5.1.

In sum, we believe that if a vehicle equipped with a driver-side air bag and an automatic seat belt complies with the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 208, the anchorages of the automatic seat belt should not have to meet the location requirements of FMV SS 210.

* * *

It should be reiterated that the air bag/automatic seat belt system will meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 in

13 compliance crash testing. We submit that the exception language in FMVSS 203, S2, and FMVSS 210, S4.3, which in both cases is dependent solely on FMVSS 208, S5.1, should not be read so as to defeat the use of a system that complies fully with FMVSS 2 08, S5.1.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions regarding our request or if we can assist in expediting your consideration of the request, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted,[]

Interpretation ID: nht89-1.34