[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31953]


[Federal Register: December 28, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 94-79; Notice 2]


General Motors Corporation; Grant of Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    General Motors Corporation (GM) of Warren, Michigan, determined 
that some of its vehicles failed to comply with 49 CFR 571.209, Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, ``Seat Belt 
Assemblies,'' and filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 
573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' GM also applied to be 
exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 301--``Motor Vehicle Safety'' on the basis that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the application was published on October 3, 
1994, and an opportunity afforded for comment (59 FR 50329). This 
notice grants the application.
    Paragraph S4.6(b) of FMVSS No. 209 states that a seat belt assembly 
shall be labeled with the following statement:
    This seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specific seating 
position(s), e.g., `front right'] in [insert specific vehicles make(s) 
and model(s)].
    GM produced two different populations of vehicles which do not meet 
the labeling requirements stated in the standard. The first population 
of vehicles, 68,405 1994 model year Chevrolet and GMC G-vans, were 
built with left-side seat belt assemblies that were labeled as right-
side assemblies.
    The second population of vehicles, 31, 978 1992-94 model year 
Chevrolet and GMC K20753 extended cab pickups, were built with front 
outboard seat belt assemblies with the appropriate model designation 
omitted. The model designation is K20753.
    GM supported its application for inconsequential noncompliance with 
the following:
    For both these issues, the GM part numbers and manufacturer's model 
numbers correctly identify the affected seat belt assemblies. In 
addition, the service parts manuals correctly specify the proper part 
number if replacement parts were needed. In the case of the G-van seat 
belt assemblies, it is not possible to install the left front seat belt 
assembly at the right front position. For the K 20753 models, the issue 
is the omission of an appropriate model. Usage of the seat belt 
assembly in any of the models identified on the label is appropriate, 
as would be usage in the K 20753.
    It is GM's understanding that the purpose of the subject 
requirement was to provide the person replacing a seat belt assembly in 
a vehicle with appropriate seat position and vehicle model information. 
However, original equipment seat belt assemblies have already been 
installed in the appropriate models and positions at the assembly 
plant. The Agency stated in a recent rulemaking proposal (Docket 74-14; 
Notice 81, dated May 10, 1993), ``. . . that seat belt assemblies 
installed as original equipment in new motor vehicles need not be 
required to be labeled with position model information. This 
information is only useful if the assembly is removed with the 
intention of using the assembly as a replacement in another vehicle. 
NHTSA does not believe this is a common practice.'' GM agrees and 
believes that the removal of original equipment seat belt assemblies 
for the purposes of replacement installation in another vehicle is 
rare. The Agency finalized that rulemaking action April 15, 1994, 
eliminating the required label verbiage on seat belt assemblies 
installed as original equipment by vehicle manufacturers.
    No comments were received on the petition. In view of the reasoning 
set forth in the agency's proposal to eliminate the requirement that 
the applicant did not originally meet and in view of the agency's final 
adoption (59 Fed. Reg. 17992; April 15, 1994) of that proposal, it is 
hereby found that the applicant has met its burden of persuasion that 
the noncompliance herein described is inconsequential to safety. 
Accordingly, General Motors is hereby exempted from the requirements of 
49 U.S.C. 30118 that it provide notification of the noncompliance 
herein described, and of 49 U.S.C. 30120 that it remedy such 
noncompliance.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 
NHTSA Order 800-2)

    Issued on: December 22, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-31953 Filed 12-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M