Search Interpretations

Interpretation ID: nht91-7.24

DATE: December 2, 1991

FROM: Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef -- Attorney, General Motors Legal Staff

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Stephen R. Kratzke; Charles W. Babcock, Jr.; Robert A. Rogers; John E. Kromrei

TITLE: General Motors Corporation; FMVSS 209, Section S4.6(b); Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Also attached to letter dated 12-20-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef (A38; Std. 209)

TEXT:

Enclosed is a request for interpretation of FMVSS 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, S4.6(b), as amended by the Final Rule published November 4, 1991 at Docket No. 74-14, Notice 72, 56 Fed. Reg. 56323. Specifically, General Motors Corporation (GM) seeks the agency's concurrence that it is permissible for manufacturers to continue to include the term "dynamically-tested" in the label required by S4.6(b) for seat belt assemblies not subject to FMVSS 209 S4.5(c).

GM has also submitted a Petition for Reconsideration of the same Final Rule, a copy of which is attached. Should the agency concur with the analysis outlined in the enclosed request for interpretation, please disregard the petition.

I appreciate your consideration of the enclosed request, and welcome the opportunity to work with you to resolve this issue. If you require further information in that regard, please feel free to call me.

ATTACHMENT

December 2, 1991

Paul Jackson Rice, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration Nassif Building 400 Seventh Street Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Rice:

Re: General Motors Corporation; FMVSS 209, Section S4.6(b); Request for Interpretation

The Final Rule included at Docket No. 74-14, Notice 72, 56 Fed. Reg. 56323 (November 4, 1991), deleted the phrase "dynamically-tested" from the label required by section S4.6(b) of FMVSS 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to make that section's label identical to the label required by FMVSS 209 S4.5(c). The purpose of this letter is to seek

the agency's concurrence that it is permissible for General Motors Corporation (GM) to continue to include the phrase "dynamically-tested" on its labels for seat belt assemblies which are not subject to S4.5(c).

BACKGROUND:

The label addressed in S4.6(b) must be included on light truck and multipurpose passenger vehicle seat belt assemblies certified as complying With FMVSS 208 S4.6.1. Such seat belt assemblies are dynamically-tested manual belt assemblies. The rule currently requires subject seat belt assemblies to be marked or labeled:

This DYNAMICALLY-TESTED seat belt assembly is for use only in (insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right") in (insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)).

S4.6(b) (Emphasis added).

The label required by S4.5(c) must be included on seat belt assemblies which include load limiters. It requires subject seat belt assemblies to be marked or labeled:

This seat belt assembly is for use only in (insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right") in (insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)).

S4.5(c). In the Preamble to the Final Rule, the agency stated:

This rule clarifies the scope of the labeling requirement for crash tested manual belts and modifies that labeling requirement to make it identical to the labeling requirement for safety belts with load limiters. These amendments will improve the clarity of the labeling requirements and AVOID NEEDLESS BURDENS ON THE MANUFACTURERS.

56 Fed. Reg. 56323. (Emphasis added.) The amendment takes effect on September 1, 1992.

GM'S ANALYSIS:

GM has released the part numbers for its 1993 model year production, and the seat belt assemblies affected by the amendment include the term "dynamically-tested" on the label. GM interprets the amendment to allow this, since the agency has, on a number of occasions, provided interpretations which indicate that manufacturers can alter label language without violating safety standards and regulations. For example, in a December 19, 1980 interpretation to Ford Motor Company, Mr. Frank Berndt concluded that Ford could alter a label required by FMVSS 213. He explained:

Your proposed revision DOES NOT MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IN THE MEANING OF THE WARNING specified for the label. Since the proposed change is A MINOR VARIATION INTENDED TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE ... it is permitted.

In another interpretation issued by Mr. Berndt, this one dated May 3, 1984, he explained to Nissan Research & Development, Inc., that a certification label that consists of two separate parts could be used as long as it "WILL NOT LEAD TO CONFUSION AND ... WILL SATISFY THE BASIC INTENT of Part 567." And in a series of interpretations on tire labeling requirements, the agency has consistently stated that additional information may be included, provided the additional language "DOES NOT OBSCURE OR CONFUSE THE MEANING OF THE REQUIRED INFORMATION, OR OTHERWISE DEFEAT ITS PURPOSE." See, e.g., May 31, 1988 letter from Ms. Erika Z. Jones to Metzeler Motorcycle Tire; and May 2, 1980 letter from Stephen P. Wood to the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.

GM's proposed inclusion of the term "dynamically-tested" in its seat belt labels falls within the agency's constraints on additional label language in each circumstance quoted above. The additional language does not substantively change the warning included in the label, and is a minor variation which clarifies that the restraint system included in the vehicle is dynamically tested. Nor will it obscure or confuse the message relayed by the label in any way.

CONCLUSION:

GM estimates that several hundred seat belt assembly part numbers (including production and service seat belt assemblies) would be affected by a requirement that GM exclude the term "dynamically-tested" from 1993 model year labels. As quoted above, the Final Rule is intended to "avoid needless burdens on manufacturers". The burden addressed there was the burden faced by manufacturers of seat belt assemblies subject to both S4.5(c) (i.e., equipped with load limiters) and S4.6(b). However, if interpreted to preclude the "dynamically-tested" language, the burden to GM to re-issue new parts for all of its affected assemblies (none of which include load limiters) would be considerable in both time and expense -- all to remove an accurately descriptive term from the label. In light of the agency's previous interpretations addressing additional language on required labels, GM seeks your concurrence on its conclusion that FMVSS 209 S4.6(b), as amended, does not preclude use of the term "dynamically-tested" in the label.

Very truly yours,

Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef Attorney

DNV:cc

Attachment

c: Stephen R. Kratzke Charles W. Babcock, Jr.

John E. Kromrei Robert A. Rogers

ATTACHMENT

USG 2926 dated 12-4-91 from Robert A. Rogers (signature by F. Laux) to Jerry R. Curry regarding General Motors Corporation Docket 74-14; Notice 72 - Petition for Reconsideration of the Final Rule. (Text of USG omitted.)