[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7097-7098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3193]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 99-6473 Notice 1]


Registered Importers; Receipt of Applications for Determination 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    The following companies, as registered importers under 49 U.S.C. 
30141(c), imported passenger cars that failed to comply with Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant Crash 
Protection'': Auto Enterprises, Inc., Dickson Motor Sales and Leasing, 
Inc., JM Motors, Inc., Superior Auto Sales, Inc., Auto Import Services, 
Inc., Laurek International Trade Service, Inc., Elite Limited Auto 
Sales and Leasing, Ltd., Champagne Imports, Inc., Potsdam Importers, 
Inc., International Vehicle Importers, Inc., Auto King, Inc., and 
Liphardt and Associates, Inc. A registered importer is a firm 
recognized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) as being capable of modifying vehicles that are imported into 
the United States to assure that they comply with all applicable 
FMVSS's. Under Section 30147, registered importers are obligated to 
notify owners and remedy safety related defects and noncompliances in 
these vehicles. All of the registered importers involved except for 
Liphardt and Associates, Inc., filed appropriate reports pursuant to 49 
CFR Part 573 ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' These registered 
reporters have also applied to be exempted from the notification and 
remedy requirements of Section 30118 and 30120. The basis of the 
applications is that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of these applications is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the applications.
    The following passenger cars (``subject vehicles''), certified by 
their original manufacturers as complying with all applicable Canadian 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, do not comply in all respects with 
FMVSS No. 208:

Chrysler LeBaron, 1994 and 1995 MY
Dodge Spirit, 1994 and 1995 MY
Dodge Shadow, 1994 and 1995 MY
Dodge Viper, 1994 and 1995 MY
Plymouth Sundance, 1994 and 1995 MY
Plymouth Acclaim, 1994 and 1995 MY

Description of Noncompliance

    The subject vehicles imported by the petitioners were manufactured 
on or after September 1, 1993, the date on which FMVSS No. 208 first 
required an automatic restraint for both front outboard seating 
positions. However, these vehicles are equipped with a driver side air 
bag and a passenger side type 2, 3-point shoulder/lap belt which met 
the standard as in effect before September 1, 1993.

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not 
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be 
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided, 
either pursuant to a petition from the manufacturer or registered 
importer or on its own initiative, that the motor vehicle is 
substantially similar to a motor vehicle of the same model year, 
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United 
States, and certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and the vehicle is capable 
of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA has 
decided, on its own initiative, that the subject motor vehicles are 
substantially similar to motor vehicles originally manufactured for 
importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 
U.S.C. Sec. 30115, and of the same model year that they are, and 
capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS. 
See 63 FR 41617 (August 4, 1998).
    The importer of a vehicle admissible under any final decision must 
indicate on the form HS-7 accompanying entry the appropriate vehicle 
eligibility number indicating that the vehicle has been determined 
eligible for entry. The subject vehicles were imported from Canada 
under the VSA-1 eligibility code, assigned to all Canadian vehicles 
that the Administrator decided to be eligible for importation. 
Documentation substantiating compliance of the subject vehicles with 
the FMVSS was submitted to NHTSA after importation. NHTSA then reviewed 
the submissions and, for the vast majority of the affected vehicles, 
issued a decision letter advising that the submitted documentation was 
acceptable. In September 1995, NHTSA informed the importers that the 
amended requirements of FMVSS No. 208 had not been met. The importers 
had misunderstood FMVSS No. 208 and had believed the passenger-side 
restraint could be a manual belt when the driver's side was air bag 
equipped. This configuration was permissible until September 1, 1993. 
This provision expired after that date, requiring automatic restraints 
on both sides. When this matter was brought to the attention of the 
registered importers, they stopped importing vehicles not meeting FMVSS 
No. 208.

Arguments by Importers

    A detailed chronology of the circumstances leading to this notice 
is contained in the ``Notification of Defect pursuant to 49 CFR 573 and 
Petition pursuant to 49 CFR 556 for exemption from recall based on 
inconsequentiality,'' dated September 14, 1998, submitted by Superior 
Auto Sales, Inc. Several of the other registered importers affected 
joined in this petition.

    A summary of petitioners' arguments follows:

    The remedy for the affected vehicles would be either the 
installation of an automatic seat belt or passenger side air bag. 
Both of these options may not increase vehicle safety.
    NHTSA has recently revised the passenger side air bag 
requirements, due to concerns regarding the extensive force of the 
air bag deployment. Any air bag system installed as a remedy for the 
affected vehicles would not meet the revised criteria. Thus, the 
remedy would require installation of old technology air bags. The 
owners of these vehicles could even petition NHTSA for permission to 
disable this safety feature.

[[Page 7098]]

    There have also been considerable arguments that the automatic 
seat belt system, as utilized, only gives an appearance of 
protection. Many occupants of the passenger seat will not use the 
manual lap belt, and thus only be protected by the automatic torso 
belt. In a crash, the protection offered by this two-point system is 
questionable.
    The automatic belts may also be attached to the door. In a 
crash, the door latch may fail, yielding no protection at all to the 
passenger.
    The passive restraint requirement went into effect when too few 
states adopted mandatory seat belt laws. These laws have now been 
adopted in all states but one. All of the affected vehicles were 
sold in mandatory seat belt usage states. It is against the law in 
these states to be unbelted. The installation of an automatic seat 
belt would therefore be redundant, since the passengers are required 
to be belted.
    The subject vehicles are 1994 and 1995 model year vehicles. 
Therefore, they are at least four years old and have completed at 
least half of their useful life. This greatly reduces the addition 
to safety, that might result from the installation of passenger side 
passive restraints.
    For these reasons, the installation of a passive restraint in 
these few vehicles involved will not result in a significant 
addition to vehicle safety.

    To the best of the importers' knowledge, there have been no 
accidents, injuries, fatalities, or warranty claims related to the 
noncompliance.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and 
arguments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the 
Docket Number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is requested that two 
copies be submitted.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing 
date indicated below will be considered. The application and supporting 
materials, and all comments received after the closing date will also 
be filed and will be considered to the extent practicable. When the 
application is granted or denied, the Notice will be published in the 
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: March 13, 2000.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 
49 CFR 501.8)

    Issued on: February 7, 2000.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-3193 Filed 2-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P