Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection; Seat Belt Assemblies |
---|
Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Barry Felrice
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
April 15, 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-9087] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: April 15, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. 74-14; Notice 86] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection; Seat Belt Assemblies AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to announce the denial of a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, ``to eliminate the requirements in S4.1 (k) and (l) that replacement seat belt assemblies be accompanied by use and installation instructions.'' The petition is denied because the petitioner did not provide any information showing that there is not any safety need to provide these instructions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel S. Cohen, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NRM-12, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4911. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 28, 1993, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM) submitted a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, ``to eliminate the requirements in S4.1 (k) and (l) that replacement seat belt assemblies be accompanied by use and installation instructions.'' In its petition, AIAM referred to petitions for inconsequential noncompliance from four manufacturers (Chrysler, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota) relating to the requirements of S4.1(k) and (l). AIAM stated that it: Believes that the objectives of FMVSS 209 are satisfied without specifically requiring the provision of installation and use instructions with each replacement safety belt assembly, since current common replacement safety belt assembly practices and procedures, replacement safety belt assembly owner's manual information, and the design of the replacement safety belt assemblies, themselves, are sufficient to ensure correct installation and proper usage. The agency so found in the cases involving petitions for inconsequential noncompliance filed by Chrysler, Nissan, and Subaru cited above. AIAM is incorrect in saying that the Chrysler petition for inconsequential noncompliance related to S4.1(k) and (l). That petition related to the requirement in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 that certain belts be labeled. However, the agency has received and granted petitions for inconsequential noncompliance from Am-Safe, Nissan, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota, and Volkswagen, all of which related to the requirements of S4.1(k) and (l). These petitions were granted because the petitioners demonstrated that the noncompliance was inconsequential due to other procedures or practices that provided the information in another format than that required by Standard No. 209. In general, these other procedures or practices relied on a determination by a mechanic or technician of physical differences unique to a particular design. These differences may have worked sufficiently well, given that there was no evidence that the belts had been incorrectly installed. However, a change in the standard to remove this requirement would substantially magnify the potential risk of improper installation, given that no evidence was provided that all seat belt and vehicle manufacturers have such a practice or procedure. The grant of a petition for inconsequential noncompliance exempts the manufacturer from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). An inconsequentiality proceeding is retrospective, and, in the case of the failure to provide installation instructions, the granting of petitions was based, in part, on the fact that there was no evidence that any of the replacement belt assemblies had been installed incorrectly. A rulemaking proceeding is, by contrast, prospective, looking at whether all future seat belt assemblies should be excluded from the requirement to provide installation information. AIAM did not demonstrate that the installation information would get to the users in a reliable and effective manner absent the requirement that it be provided with the belt. Therefore, the agency finds that there is no reasonable possibility that the order requested would be issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding and is denying this petition. Issued on April 11, 1994. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 94-9087 Filed 4-14-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P