[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43039-43040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20667]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000-7125 Notice 2]


General Motors Corporation; Denial of Application for 
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    General Motors Corporation (GM) has determined that seat belt 
assemblies in certain 1999-2000 Model Year Chevrolet S-10 and GMC 
Sonoma pickup trucks and Chevrolet Blazer/Trail Blazer, GMC Jimmy/ 
Envoy, and Oldsmobile Bravada sport utility vehicles failed to comply 
with the requirements of 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 Information 
Reports.'' GM also applied to be exempted from the notification and 
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118--30120 on the basis that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C. 
30118(d) and 30120(h).
    Notice of receipt of the application was published on April 25, 
2000, and an opportunity afforded for comment (65 FR 24252). This 
notice denies the application.
    According to GM, from November 1998 through August 1999, the 
company manufactured approximately 463,513 1999 and 2000 model year 
Chevrolet S-10 and GMC Sonoma pickup trucks and the Chevrolet Blazer/
Trail Blazer, GMC Jimmy/Envoy, and Oldsmobile Bravada sport utility 
vehicles that failed the performance requirement of S4.3(j)(1) of FMVSS 
No. 209 which states, ``* * * Shall lock before the webbing extends 25 
mm when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 7 m/s\2\ 
(0.7g) . . .''
    GM stated that the noncompliance results from a plastic flash 
(burr) on the mechanical sensor lever near its pivot where it mates to 
the sensor housing. This flash can cause a nonconformance to the 0.7 g 
locking requirement due to potential increased drag of the sensor lever 
in the housing. GM believes that only a very small portion of the 
subject retractors fail to meet the 0.7 g retractor locking requirement 
and the transportation shock and vibration that the subject retractors 
might experience during transit to dealerships, either by rail or truck 
(haulaway), would make compliant a large percentage of the noncompliant 
retractors.
    GM stated that the subject seat belt assemblies locked at no more 
than 1.2 g. GM provided dynamic frontal barrier test data demonstrating 
that onset shoulder belt loading occurs prior to the time it takes for 
the seat belt assembly to reach 1.2 g. In addition, GM calculated the 
acceleration to lock the retractor in a rollover simulation and 
concluded that the subject retractors will lock up prior to rollover.
    No responses were received on the request for public comments.
    The purpose of the emergency locking retractor (ELR) requirement is 
to lock the webbing spool and restrain an occupant's travel distance 
before the occupant strikes the vehicle's interior structure during 
panic braking to avoid death and injury. In establishing the levels for 
the ELR requirement, in response to the March 17, 1970 Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend S4.3(j)(1) of FMVSS No. 209 GM 
stated,

    ``General Motors believes that emergency locking retractors 
should lock during panic braking maneuvers if optimum performance is 
to be expected from an upper torso restraint system that is equipped 
with such retractors. During panic braking, an occupant may be 
subjected to deceleration forces well under 1.0 gravity. These 
decelerations usually cause the occupant to move relative to the 
vehicle unless restrained. In many instances, vehicle impacts are 
immediately preceded by panic braking which may cause the restraint 
system to become fully extended prior to impact unless the retractor 
can lock at values under 1.0 gravity. In order to balance the 
convenient use of the system with the necessity to have it perform 
its safety restraint function, General Motors believes the standard 
should require that an emergency locking retractor should not lock 
below 0.3 gravity but must lock above 0.7 gravity.'' (35 FR 4641)

    The subject ELRs locked at levels as high as 1.2 g, which is not 
the ``optimum performance * * * expected from an upper torso restraint 
system,'' which currently is required at 0.7 g, as recommended by GM in 
their response to the 1970 NPRM. GM determined by its dynamic frontal 
barrier test data that onset shoulder belt loading occurs prior to the 
time it takes for the seat belt assembly to reach 1.2 g. NHTSA shares 
the same concern GM had in its 1970 NPRM response that,

``during panic braking, an occupant may be subjected to deceleration 
forces well under 1.0 gravity. These decelerations usually cause the 
occupant to move relative to the vehicle unless restrained. In many 
instances, vehicle impacts are immediately preceded by panic braking 
which may cause the restraint system to become fully extended prior 
to impact unless the retractor can lock at values under 1.0 
gravity.''

    Since these subject retractors do not lock at deceleration forces 
below 1.0 g, but instead lock up at 1.2 g, the delay in lockup time may 
cause occupants to move about more freely in a frontal crash or in a 
rollover, and thus be injured by striking the interior of the vehicle. 
The injury potential may apply more so to those who sit in a full 
forward seating position, or close to an object such as the steering 
wheel, the knee bolster, or other parts of the interior of the vehicle. 
GM did not provide any dynamic frontal crash injury criteria data to 
disprove the delay in lockup might not cause injury to an occupant with 
these noncompliant retractors.
    GM believes that the pre-sale delivery transportation shock and 
vibration that the subject retractors might experience during transit 
to dealerships, either by rail or truck (haulaway), would jar a lot of 
the burrs off of these parts and make compliant a large percentage of 
the noncompliant retractors. However, GM admits that some noncompliant 
retractors will remain and a safety risk will still exist.
    In order for NHTSA to decide an inconsequentiality petition, it is 
necessary to determine whether the particular noncompliance is likely 
to increase the risk that an occupant will experience the type of 
injury that the requirement is intended to prevent.

[[Page 43040]]

Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or pieces of motor 
vehicle equipment are affected generally will not justify granting a 
petition. But, more importantly, the key issue is whether the 
noncompliance is likely to increase the safety risk to occupants. 
Cosco, Inc.; Denial of Application for Inconsequential Noncompliance, 
64 FR 29408 (June 1, 1999). In this instance, we conclude that the 
noncompliance is likely to increase a safety risk to users of the 
restraint system.
    In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that the 
applicant has failed to meet its burden of persuasion that the 
noncompliance herein described is inconsequential to safety, and its 
application is denied.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 
49 CFR 501.8)

    Issued on: August 13, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-20667 Filed 8-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P