ID: nht94-7.42

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Angela R. Caron (Meridian, MS)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/17/93 from Angela R. Caron to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9119)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the safety of aftermarket belt positioning devices. The devices you ask about alter the positioning of vehicle lap and shoulder belts, for the advertised purposes of improving the fit of the belts on children and small adults.

Although NHTSA understands your view that safety belts should be comfortable for the wearer, we have significant concerns about aftermarket belt positioning devices. The following discussion explains those concerns and the effect of our regulations on such products.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not have a safety standard that directly applies to belt positioning devices. Our safety standards for "Occupant Crash Protection," (Standard No. 208) and "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages" (Standard No. 210) apply to new, completed vehicles. In addition, our safety standard for "Seat Belt Assemblies" (Standard No. 209) applies to new seat belt assemblies. Because a belt positioning device is neither installed as part of a completed vehicle nor as part of a seat belt assembly, none of these regulations apply to belt positioning devices.

While none of these standards applies to a belt positioning device, the manufacturer of the product is subject to the requirements of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. To date, there have been no defect proceedings concerning these products. In addition, while it is unlikely that a belt positioning device would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the Safety Act prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "rendered inoperative" compliance with any safety standard.

Belt positioning devices raise safety concerns you should consider in deciding whether to use these products. These devices could be used in a way that significantly affects crash forces on the occupant. Standard No. 208 includes requirements that have the effect of ensuring that the lap and shoulder belts distribute the crash forces to the occupant's skeletal structure, a part of the body that can better withstand the forces. For example, Standard No. 208 requires the shoulder belt and the lap belt to intersect off of the abdominal area. A device that moved that intersection from the side to the middle of the abdomen could greatly increase the loading on the occupant's abdomen. An increase in abdominal loading could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt.

There are other concerns about these devices. The realigning of the shoulder belt could increase the likelihood that the wearer would twist toward the middle of the vehicle in a crash, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt. In addition, if the device introduced excessive slack into the belt system, the occupant's head would be more likely to contact the vehicle interior. Also, slack in the belt system generally introduces higher crash forces, which increase the risk of injury. We urge you to consider these factors when deciding whether to use a belt positioning device, or the manner in which to use one.

You also asked whether a "travel vest" can be used with your two and a half year old son, in place of a child seat. The travel vest is a "child restraint system" and is thus subject to our safety standard for child restraints (Standard No. 213). The manufacturer of the travel vest (which the standard refers to as a "harness") is responsible for determining the conformance of the vest to the requirements of Standard No. 213, and certifying that the vest so conforms. This agency periodically tests products for compliance with Standard No. 213. When properly used, harnesses that comply with Standard 213 provide good protection in a crash, similar to that provided by child seats. You should always follow the manufacturer's instructions for using the child restraint system, including the specifications for the weight of the child for whom the restraint is recommended.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9119

Ms. Angela R. Caron
892 Murray Rd.
Meridian, MS 39305

Dear Ms. Caron:

This responds to your letter asking about the safety of aftermarket belt positioning devices. The devices you ask about alter the positioning of vehicle lap and shoulder belts, for the advertised purposes of improving the fit of the belts on children and small adults.

Although NHTSA understands your view that safety belts should be comfortable for the wearer, we have significant concerns about aftermarket belt positioning devices. The following discussion explains those concerns and the effect of our regulations on such products.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not have a safety standard that directly applies to belt positioning devices. Our safety standards for "Occupant Crash Protection," (Standard No. 208) and "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages" (Standard No. 210) apply to new, completed vehicles. In addition, our safety standard for "Seat Belt Assemblies" (Standard No. 209) applies to new seat belt assemblies. Because a belt positioning device is neither installed as part of a completed vehicle nor as part of a seat belt assembly, none of these regulations apply to belt positioning devices.

While none of these standards applies to a belt positioning device, the manufacturer of the product is subject to the requirements of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. To date, there have been no defect proceedings concerning these products. In addition, while it is unlikely that a belt positioning device would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the Safety Act prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "rendered inoperative" compliance with any safety standard.

Belt positioning devices raise safety concerns you should consider in deciding whether to use these products. These devices could be used in a way that significantly affects crash forces on the occupant. Standard No. 208 includes requirements that have the effect of ensuring that the lap and shoulder belts distribute the crash forces to the occupant's skeletal structure, a part of the body that can better withstand the forces. For example, Standard No. 208 requires the shoulder belt and the lap belt to intersect off of the abdominal area. A device that moved that intersection from the side to the middle of the abdomen could greatly increase the loading on the occupant's abdomen. An increase in abdominal loading could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt.

There are other concerns about these devices. The realigning of the shoulder belt could increase the likelihood that the wearer would twist toward the middle of the vehicle in a crash, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt. In addition, if the device introduced excessive slack into the belt system, the occupant's head would be more likely to contact the vehicle interior. Also, slack in the belt system generally introduces higher crash forces, which increase the risk of injury. We urge you to consider these factors when deciding whether to use a belt positioning device, or the manner in which to use one.

You also asked whether a "travel vest" can be used with your two and a half year old son, in place of a child seat. The travel vest is a "child restraint system" and is thus subject to our safety standard for child restraints (Standard No. 213). The manufacturer of the travel vest (which the standard refers to as a "harness") is responsible for determining the conformance of the vest to the requirements of Standard No. 213, and certifying that the vest so conforms. This agency periodically tests products for compliance with Standard No. 213. When properly used, harnesses that comply with Standard No. 213 provide good protection in a crash, similar to that provided by child seats. You should always follow the manufacturer's instructions for using the child restraint system, including the specifications for the weight of the child for whom the restraint is recommended.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208#213 d:3/16/94

ID: nht78-4.16

DATE: 02/24/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Emil M. Mrak

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1978, to Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the seat belts in your Cougar automobile.

Your original letter of December 12, 1977, to Secretary Brock Adams, complaining about the seat belts in your automobile has been answered. A copy of our reply is enclosed to this letter and is still relevant to your problem.

As long as the lap-shoulder belt intersection is not less than 6 inches from the vertical centerline of the driver, any other location that is confortable and easy to use is allowable. We suggest that you again contact your dealer to determine if the belt arrangement can be modified to be better suited to your condition and yet have the belt configuration remain within the NHTSA requirements.

SINCERELY,

January 30, 1978

Honorable Joan Claybrook Department of Transportation

Dear Miss Claybrook:

I have been in correspondence with the Ford Motor Company concerning the inadequacies of the seat belts in their new cars, and especially the Cougar.

I am enclosing copies of correspondence that I have had with the Ford Motor Company and the Department of Transportation, and this latter has not been answered.

The present seat belt arrangement is almost impossible for a person of my age to use. If the attachment on the right side of the driver were six inches longer it would be easy to use. As it is, when I drive around town I am not using a seat belt, although I would prefer to use one. When I take longer trips, I use it and, if my wife is along, I have her assistance in attaching it. If she is not along, I struggle and struggle until finally I get it attached.

It is of interest to me that the Ford Motor Company blames the Department of Transportation for this inadequacy. I just can't believe it. If it is the fault of the Department of Transportation I hope the Department will correct it.

If the Department of Transportation can't help in this matter, then I plan to take it up with some member of Congress.

As you well know, we got rid of the interlock system. I think this can be corrected too.

VERY TRULY YOURS, Emil M. Mrak

602 CORDOVA PLACE DAVIS, CA 95616

December 12, 1977

The Honorable Brockman Adam The Secretary of Transportation

Dear Mr. Adams:

Sometime ago I wrote the Ford Company complaining about the inaccessibility of the short portion of the seat belt to a person who is up in years. I pointed out that because of the extreme difficulty of hitching these up, more and more people are failing to use seat belts. Furthermore, the twisting and squirning required could very well result in backbone injuries to elderly people.

I was astounded to receive a letter from the Ford Company indicating that the Federal Standards required such a belt. This is hard for me to believe. In any event, I would appreciate knowing if what they told me is the truth, and if it is, then, the truth, I would strongly recommend that this requirement be revised. If it is not a requirement, then I think the Ford Company should be told to take the blame off the Department of Transportation.

If Congressional help is needed to make such a change, I would be glad to pursue it.

I am enclosing copies of my letter to Mr. Wilson of the Ford Company and also his reply, which as (Illegible Words) astonished me.

VERY TRULY YOURS, Emil M. Mrak

ID: 86-5.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DAVID M. CIMA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/01/86 TO LEGAL COUNSEL -- NHTSA, FROM DAVID M. CIMA RE VISIBLE DISPLAY TO AUTOMOBILE DRIVER OF STATUS OF TRANSMISSION, OCC-1122

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cima:

This responds to your letter asking about the identification and visibility requirements applicable to a gear position indicator for an automatic transmission. You asked whether the indicator must be visible to the driver (1) when he or she enters the car or (2) whenever anyone is behind the wheel. As discussed below, the indicator must be visible whenever anyone is in the driver's seating position.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, requires that the "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions and of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions . . . shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." (Emphasis added) NHTSA has previously interpreted this provision as requiring a display that can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, it is not permissible for the display to be visible (e.g., in the case of an electronic display, become activated) only after the driver turns on the ignition.

Your letter raises the issue of whether it is permissible for an electronic display to become activated at the time the driver enters the car and, if so, whether it must remain activated indefinitely as long as the driver remains in the car, even if the ignition is not turned on. It is our opinion that it is permissible for an electronic display to become activated at the time the driver enters the car and need not be activated when there is no person in the driver's seating position. Section S3.2's requirement that the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions be "permanently displayed" is modified by the phrase "in

view of the driver." It is our opinion that no such display is required at times when no driver is in the car, i.e., no person in the driver's seating position. We also conclude, however, that such a display must remain activated indefinitely as long as the driver remains in the driver's seating position even if the ignition is not turned on. If the display only remained activated for a specific period of time, such as five minutes, it would not be "permanently" displayed.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ID: nht91-5.26

DATE: August 14, 1991

FROM: Elizabeth D. Smith -- Department Head, Community and Special Services, Division of Program Monitoring, State of South Carolina, State Health and Human Services Finance Commission

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-15-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Elizabeth D. Smith (A38; VSA S108(a)(2)(A); Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I spoke with you last week regarding the addition of safety belts to a 1986 Ford Club Wagon which is currently used to transport children between three and five years of age. The vehicle is classified as a bus according to the Federal Motor Vehicle Standards. It and others like it, which are owned by our agency and assigned to child development contractors, are used primarily to transport pre-school age children to and from the child development center and on field trips. The vehicle has seat belts for 15 passengers including the driver. The question has been posed regarding the legality and safety of adding additional seat belts in order for providers to transport up to four additional children. As equipped now, the providers are physically able to belt more than one child per seat belt. However, their compliance with state laws in doing such is questionable.

I have checked with the Legal Division of the South Carolina Highway Department and have been advised by Bill Todd that there is currently no state law that would forbid someone from adding seat belts to a vehicle and transporting more than 14 children on these vans. Mr. Todd advised me to check with you regarding any Federal regulations that would prohibit this. Contact was also made with Robert Green, who represents the Coalition for Safer, Cleaner Vehicles. He saw no problem with doing this. He suggested that the anchor points may be a problem, but since the vehicles are being used to transport children, he didn't see any reason why they would be a problem.

The particular provider who has raised this question would use the local Ford dealership to install the additional belts. She has spoken with the service manager at the dealership and he feels that this can easily be accomplished without adversely affecting the safety of the vehicle. He felt that the additional weight of the extra passengers would not overload the vehicle, but planned to discuss it with his district or regional manager this week. The service manager also spoke to a Highway Patrol Sergeant who stated that the vehicle doesn't specify the seating capacity or the number of persons per seat; therefore, he saw no problem with the installation of additional seat belts. There is nothing in any of the materials regarding this vehicle that states it is a 15 passenger van. The only thing that currently defines that is the number of seat belts. Our main question for your office is whether the addition of seat belts violates the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Act.

Additional information taken from the inside door of the van is:

Date 4/86 GVWR 8000 lbs./391 KG Front GAWR: 3400 lbs. Rear GAWR: 6,084 lbs.

1,542 KG WITH 2,759 KG WITH Type Bus (not school bus) 9M

Any information that you can provide us in the very near future regarding these questions is greatly appreciated. We are certain that other child care provider would be interested in your response as many of them routinely transport more than 14 children on these vans by double belting them. If there are extenuating circumstances that impact your responses, please outline them for us. For example, the person manning your hotline number stated that, if the dealer made the installations and would re-certify the safety compliance, then it may be O.K. for the additional belts to be installed.

We don't want our providers to place their clients and their drivers at risk when riding in a vehicle that has been altered, but we also recognize their dilemmas in meeting clients' needs for transportation and the funding limitations that prevent them from purchasing another vehicle and hiring and training staff to drive it. I understand that the liability question would rest with the state if there was an accident.

Thank you for your assistance in promptly addressing this situation. If you need additional information, please feel free to call me at (803) 253-6154.

ID: aiam1324

Dear Mr. Hodgson: This is in reply to your letter of October 26,, 1973, requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Paragraph S3.2.1.2 (Mounting).; Paragraph S3.2.1.2 requires, in part, that the outside mirror on th driver's side be capable of adjustment from the driver's seated position. The purpose of this requirements is to ensure that any necessary adjustment of the mirror can be readily accomplished without affecting the continued safe operation of the vehicle in motion. I for some reason the position of the outside mirror were altered so as to obstruct the clear view of the driver to the rear, he would be compelled to leave the highway and remove himself from the vehicle in order to make an adjustment. This possibility defeats one of the purposes of paragraph S3.2.1.2.; Paragraph S3.2.1.2 also provides that the mirror shall not be obscure by the unwiped portion of the windshield. As you stated in your letter, the curvature of the Traveco windshield will not afford an unobscured view of the mirror in that the mirror only retains about 80% of its visibility in the rain and snow. Visibility of 80% does not satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 111.; In summary, the mounting you have suggested for rearview mirrors on th Traveco motor homes is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Paragraph S3.2.1.2 of Standard No. 111. However, pursuant to section 108 (b)(1) of the Vehicle Safety Act, the nonconforming mirrors you have described may be installed if the installation is accomplished after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. You should also be aware that a revision of the standard is presently under consideration which may have an effect on the future compliance of the mirrors.; We appreciate your inquiry. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 07-007542--29 Feb 08--sa--2

ID: 11368DRN

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Manager, Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen
Mail Code 4F02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a single coil spring consisting of multiple strands of wire twisted together would meet the Standard No. 124 Accelerator Control Systems requirement that the control system have "at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3." Since we do not agree that each wire strand constitutes a separate source of energy, the answer is no.

Under specified temperature conditions, S5. Requirements, of Standard No. 124 states that the vehicle shall meet the following requirements when the engine is running under any load condition:

S5.1 There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force.

In your letter, you expressed your belief that a single coil spring consisting of multiple strands of wire twisted together would constitute the "two sources of energy" capable of returning the throttle to the idle position. You stated: "Assuming in the spring consisting of three strands of wire, that if only one strand is broken, the remaining two would have sufficient force to return the throttle to idle, we believe such a spring would comply with S5.1." You stated that a seven wire spring would provide even greater redundancy as the spring would have sufficient force to return the throttle to idle if up to three of the wire strands were broken.

We do not agree that a single spring consisting of multiple strands of wire meets Standard No. 124. A spring consisting of multiple strands of wire may be more resistant to fatigue than a spring consisting of a single strand, but the spring remains a single component. S5.1 requires two sources of energy that are separate, independent components. I note that the purpose of the requirement for "two sources of energy" was explained in a September 23, 1972 Federal Register document, in which NHTSA concurred with a petitioner's statement: "The intent of paragraph S5.1 is to eliminate the driver's dependence on a single accelerator return spring." (See 37 FR 20033, at 20034).

The components must also be independent of each other in order to meet S5.2, which specifies a return to idle if "any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point." (Emphasis added.) The disconnection of a single spring consisting of multiple strands of wire would make the accelerator control system unable to meet S5.2.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:124 d:1/19/96

ID: 24564ogm_Nov18

Ms. Mary Lowry
982 Rollingwood Loop, Apt. 114
Casselberry, FL 32707

Dear Ms. Lowry:

This responds to your letter asking for permission to have an automobile repair shop disconnect a malfunctioning seat belt warning system in a 1993 model year passenger car.You state that the warning light and "beeper" in this vehicle have developed "a mind of its own."The warning light and audible warning in the car originally functioned properly and would cease operating when the belt was fastened, but now remain on after the seat belt has been latched.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer or repair facility would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning warning system.Further, Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt warning system.

Nevertheless, we strongly urge that you have the system repaired, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection for all occupants during the remainder of its life.Seat belt use is the single most important step that people can take to reduce their risk of injury while riding in a vehicle.We also note that dealers and repair facilities might be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection.

By way of background information, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1993 model year cars to be equipped with seat belt warning system that would remind occupants at the front outboard seating positions to fasten their seat belts when the key was placed in the ignition and moved to the "on" or "start" positions.

Whether a dealer or repair business could disconnect the seat belt warning system is determined by Section 30122 of Chapter 301 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 30122).Section 30122(b) prohibits certain businesses from disconnecting or otherwise defeating a required safety device:

(b)Prohibition. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . .

However, since the belt warning system in your vehicle is malfunctioning and is already partially inoperative, we would not consider any subsequent disconnection of the warning system as making it fully inoperative.I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer or repair shop must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In closing, we ask that you contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The report that you make, and other vehicle owners may make, are important information that helps the agency in determining if other vehicles like yours are experiencing the same or similar problems.This information helps us to determine if vehicles contain defects that may have an impact on safety.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.11/19/02

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.)