[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 186 (Monday, September 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57649-57650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24551]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7164; Notice 2]
Suzuki Motor Corporation; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Suzuki Motor Corporation of Hamamatsu, Japan, has determined that
it manufactured 1,595 vehicles that fail to comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, ``Child Restraint Anchorage
Systems,'' and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' Suzuki has 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 April 25,
2000 in the Federal Register (65 FR 24253), with a 30-day comment
period. We received no comments.
FMVSS No. 225, S4.1, requires that:
Each tether anchorage and each child restraint anchorage system
installed, either voluntarily or pursuant to this standard, in any
new vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1999, shall comply
with the configuration, location, marking and strength requirements
of this standard. The vehicle shall be delivered with written
information, in English, on how to appropriately use those
anchorages and systems.
FMVSS No. 225, S12, requires that:
The vehicle must provide written instructions, in English, for
using the tether anchorages and the child restraint anchorage system
in the vehicle. If the vehicle has an owner's manual, the
instructions must be in that manual. The instructions shall:
(a) Indicate which seating positions in the vehicle are equipped
with tether anchorages and child restraint anchorage systems;
(b) In the case of vehicles required to be marked as specified
in paragraphs S4.1, S9.5(a), or S15.4, explain the meaning of
markings provided to locate the lower anchorages of child restraint
anchorage systems; and
(c) Include instructions that provide a step-by-step procedure,
including diagrams, for properly attaching a child restraint
system's tether strap to the tether anchorages.
At the start of production for the 2000 model year, Suzuki began
installing user-ready tether anchorages as standard equipment in Suzuki
Swift vehicles. Due to an oversight, however, Suzuki neglected to
update the Suzuki Swift owner's manual in conjunction with this
production change. As a result, the owner's manuals for 1,595 Suzuki
Swift vehicles manufactured between August 1999 and February 2000, and
shipped prior to March 2000, do not comply with the information
requirements in FMVSS No. 225.
Suzuki supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance
with the following:
``The vehicle owner's manual for the subject Suzuki Swift
vehicles contains the following text relating to the use of child
restraint systems that require use of a top tether:
Some child restraint systems require the use of a top strap. If
you use such a restraint system and your vehicle is not equipped
with the top tether strap anchor bracket, have your dealer install
the top strap anchor bracket, or contact your dealer for
instructions on how to install the anchor bracket.
In addition to the text message, the owner's manual contains two
illustrations (one for the hatchback model and one for the sedan
model) showing a child restraint system positioned at one of the
rear seating positions, with its tether strap attached to the tether
anchorage.
Although the Swift owner's manual does not mention that user-
ready tether anchorages are provided as standard equipment and does
not show all of the seating positions that are equipped with a
tether anchorage, the illustrations in the manual do show the tether
anchorage location for one of the rear seating positions. Suzuki
believes that vehicle owners will assume, based on the
illustrations, that anchorages are provided for both rear seating
positions. In addition, when you look at the actual vehicle, it is
obvious that user-ready anchorages are provided as standard
equipment for both rear seating positions. Since the tether
anchorages are easily recognizable in the vehicle, Suzuki believes
that failure to fully illustrate the location of each tether
anchorage in the vehicle owner's manual is inconsequential.
The Swift owner's manual also does not fully comply with the
requirement to ``* * * provide a step-by-step procedure, including
diagrams, for properly attaching a child restraint system to the
tether anchorages* * *.'' Typically, because there are differences
in child restraint system design, the vehicle owner's manual can
only provide general instructions to hook the tether strap hook into
the anchor bracket and tighten the tether strap. These steps are
somewhat obvious, and should be intuitively understood by vehicle
owners.
Also, each child restraint system is required to be accompanied
with its own installation instructions. S5.6.1 of FMVSS No. 213,
Child Restraint Systems, requires that each child restraint system
``* * * must be accompanied by printed installation instructions in
the English language that provide a step-by-step procedure,
including diagrams, for installing the system in motor vehicles * *
*.''. Suzuki believes that vehicle owners rely on the installation
instructions provided with the child restraint system, rather than
those provided in the vehicle owner's manual, for information about
how to install the child restraint system in their vehicle. As a
result, Suzuki believes that failure to provide a step-by-step
procedure, in the vehicle owner's manual, for attaching a child
restraint system to the vehicle's tether anchorages is
inconsequential to safety.''
We are denying Suzuki's application for the following reasons:
Suzuki failed to adhere to S4.1 of FMVSS No. 225, which requires
that manufacturers shall specify tether anchorage configurations and
locations in their vehicles along with written information on how to
use those anchorages and systems appropriately. Suzuki also failed to
meet the requirements of S12(a) and (c) of FMVSS No. 225, which specify
that the information provided in the vehicle owner's manual must (a)
indicate which seating positions in the vehicle are equipped with
tether anchorages and (b) include instructions that provide step-by-
step procedures, and diagrams for properly attaching a child restraint
system's tether strap to the tether anchorages. Suzuki provides no
excuse for its oversight in neglecting to update the 2000 model year
Suzuki Swift owner's manual with the required information.
The agency does not agree with Suzuki that illustrating one child
restraint system positioned at only one of the two rear seating
positions, with its tether strap attached to the tether anchorage
sufficiently demonstrates to the owner that in fact two rear seating
positions are available for child restraints with tether installations.
The agency further disagrees with Suzuki's assumption that the steps
necessary for hooking the tether strap to the anchor bracket in the
vehicle will be ``intuitively'' understood by vehicle owners. Child
restraint systems with a top tether strap have only recently been
introduced for use in this country, and requirements for tether
anchorages have only applied to vehicles manufactured after September
1, 1999. Therefore, it is not likely that vehicle owners will be
familiar with this new child restraint system feature on the child seat
itself or its proper connection to the vehicle. The use of a top tether
decreases the motion of a child restraint in a forward crash and
therefore reduces the likelihood that the occupant child's head will
impact hard interior surfaces of the
[[Page 57650]]
vehicle; hence, proper use of this feature improves the child
occupant's protection.
As stated above, vehicle owners are not likely to be familiar with
the purpose, use, or installation of top tethers in their vehicles,
which may in some instances contribute to their misuse or nonuse of the
top tether entirely when proper use and installation information is not
provided. This may be especially true when specific information
regarding the vehicle's tether anchor brackets is not made obvious to
them when referring to their vehicle owner's manual for instruction.
Studies show that there is significant misuse of child restraint
systems in this country. In part, this can be attributed to parents and
care givers who improperly install child restraints in their vehicles.
It is imperative that proper child restraint use and installation
instructions be provided in a ``step-by-step'' fashion, particularly
when new features and/or installation requirements are introduced, in
as many resources as possible. Therefore, the agency cannot emphasize
enough the importance of providing parents and care givers with
specific information regarding proper child restraint use and
installation.
The agency also does not agree with Suzuki's claim that because of
differences in child restraint system designs, a vehicle owner's manual
can only provide ``general instructions.'' We note that we denied a
petition filed by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance)
on April 17, 1999, which asked the agency to delete the requirement in
FMVSS No. 225 that vehicle manufacturers provide ``step-by-step''
instructions, including diagrams, for properly attaching a child
restraint tether hook to the vehicle anchor. The agency denied this
request on August 31, 1999, stating that ``* * * Standard No. 213
specifies the configuration and geometry of the tether hook * * *''
which would enable vehicle manufacturers to develop their written
instructions with the tether hook design in mind (64 FR 47566). The
Alliance submitted a subsequent petition for reconsideration request on
October 15, 1999, which requested that the agency defer the effective
date on the detailed instruction requirement one year from September 1,
1999. The agency denied this request in a notice published July 31,
2000 (65 FR 46628).
Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided
that the applicant has not met its burden of persuasion that the
noncompliance it describes is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety,
and it should not be exempted from the notification and remedy
requirements of the statute. Accordingly, its application is hereby
denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: September 19, 2000.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-24551 Filed 9-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P