[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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
