[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 236 (Friday, December 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63584-63585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30357]



[[Page 63584]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2001-8842; Notice 2]


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

    General Motors Corporation (GM) of Warren, Michigan, has determined 
that child restraint lower anchorages in approximately 33,916 of its 
model year 2001 vehicles \1\ 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.'' GM has also petitioned 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Noncompliant GM vehicles include approximately 17,377 
Pontiac Azteks, 5,215 Pontiac Montanas, 8,370 Chevrolet Ventures, 
and 2,954 Oldsmobile Silhouettes (U-vans). These vehicles were built 
with lower anchorage bars that are either above or below the 6.0 
 0.1 mm diameter requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 20, 2001, NHTSA published a notice of receipt of the 
application in the Federal Register (66 FR 10948, Docket No. NHTSA-
2001-8842; Notice 1) and requested comments by March 22, 2001.
    Paragraphs S9.1.1 and S15.1.2.1 of FMVSS No. 225 specify that, for 
each child restraint anchorage system, the lower anchorages shall 
consist of two bars that are 6 mm  0.1 mm in diameter. The 
lower anchorages are designed to secure the child restraint system onto 
the vehicle rather than using the vehicle's belt system. Child 
restraints will have components that attach to the bars. NHTSA 
established the diameter specification of the anchorages to ensure 
compatibility between the child seat and the anchorages so that the 
components on child restraints can latch securely onto the bars and 
will remain attached in a crash.
    On November 3, 2000, GM submitted a Part 573 Noncompliance Report 
advising NHTSA that 75,816 model year (MY) 2001 vehicles may not comply 
with FMVSS No. 225. Based on measurements taken from a sample of 32 
seats in GMT250 (Azteks) and 52 seats in GM200 (U Vans) vehicles, GM 
believes that approximately 33,916 of these vehicles actually have 
anchors with diameters outside the range allowed by the standard. From 
the sampling data, the range of the diameter of the anchorages were 
estimated as 5.99 mm to 6.30 mm for the first group and 5.59 mm to 6.32 
mm for the second group of vehicles. The compliance range allowed by 
FMVSS No. 225 is 5.9 mm to 6.1 mm. The 33,916 affected vehicles include 
30% of 27,901 Chevrolet Ventures (8,370), 30% of 9,845 Oldsmobile 
Silhouettes (2,954), 30% of 17,383 Pontiac Montanas (5,215), and 84% of 
20,687 Pontiac Azteks (17,377).
    On November 29, 2000, GM submitted a petition for an exemption from 
the recall requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    GM explained how the noncompliance happened. ``In the case of the 
Aztek, this condition was caused by the inadvertent release of 
component drawings that allowed the lower anchorage bar material to be 
supplied out of compliance. For the U vans and Azteks, it was not 
originally known that the coating process for the lower anchorage bar 
was not capable of holding the required tolerance. As a result, some of 
the lower anchorages of the subject vehicles do not meet the diameter 
specification.''
    In summary, GM supported its petition for a determination of 
inconsequential noncompliance with the following:
    1. ``Child restraint manufacturers currently offer to U.S. 
customers two child seats with LATCH attachment mechanisms: The Fisher 
Price Safe Embrace \2\ and the Cosco Triad. Both of these child seats 
use a hook mechanism to attach to the lower anchorage bars * * * [T]he 
integrity and performance of the [hook] attachment will not be 
materially affected by the small deviations from the specification for 
the diameter of the lower anchor * * * GM is not aware of any proposed 
U.S. child seat latch mechanism that would not be compatible with the 
anchors on the subject vehicles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Fisher Price has recently announced that it will cease the 
production of child restraints, including the Safe Embrace. 
[Footnote added by NHTSA.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. ``[A]ll the child seats, in addition to the requirements for a 
latch mechanism, must also be designed to work with the vehicle seat 
belt system. Therefore, each child seat, whether LATCH compatible or 
not, will be able to be safely secured to each of these vehicles.''
    3. GM said they ``do not foresee any problem with future designs 
and the anchors that are below 5.9 mm.''
    4. In the future, it is possible that a slotted attachment could be 
designed and that the slot might be too small to accept some of these 
anchors that exceed 6.1 mm. To address this situation, GM plans to send 
a letter to owners to advise them how to handle such a situation.'' 
(Use the vehicle belt system to attach the child seats.)
    Based on the above arguments, GM stated that the noncompliance with 
FMVSS No. 225 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and requested 
that NHTSA grant the inconsequentiality petition.
    The agency received two comments responding to NHTSA's February 
2001 notice. They were from Britax Child Safety, Inc. (8842-2, dated 
March 21, 2001), and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (8842-3, 
dated March 22, 2001).
    Britax (8842-2) stated that its ``designed LATCH compatible 
connectors will not fit onto lower anchorage bars having a diameter 
greater than the tolerances specified in Standard 225.'' Britax 
contacted GM about the potential problem but could not arrive at a 
mutually agreeable solution to the problem with GM. Britax worries that 
it may be wrongly and unfairly blamed if consumers encounter the 
potential incompatibility problem between its child restraints and the 
GM lower anchorages. Britax also worries that a partially engaged seat 
connector and oversized anchorage bar could fail in a crash, and that 
Britax could be blamed for a faulty seat design.
    Advocates (8842-3) believes that the agency should deny GM's 
application based on various safety concerns, and that the denial would 
be consistent with the agency's previous ruling on denying a petition 
submitted by Suzuki for inconsequential noncompliance (65 FR 57649, 
September 25, 2000).
    On May 7, 2001, GM submitted supplemental information (8842-4) ``to 
document the additional information discussed and GM's position.'' GM 
further estimated that among the 33,916 noncompliant vehicles, 19,610 
vehicles (58%) may have an anchorage diameter over 6.1 mm. Therefore, 
the other 14,306 vehicles (42%) may have an anchorage diameter less 
than 5.9 mm. GM stated that the noncompliance problem was first 
discovered during an ISO Working Group meeting in Canada. A 
demonstration of a Britax prototype child seat with a LATCH ``hard 
connector'' design failed to fit onto the lower anchorages in a 2001 
Pontiac Aztek vehicle. The diameters of the anchorages were measured as 
6.18 mm to 6.23 mm in the middle, and 6.22 mm to 6.25 mm on the sides 
of the anchorage bars.
    Although GM acknowledged the noncompliance of the anchorage bars in

[[Page 63585]]

the Aztek vehicle, GM also complained that the opening of Britax's 
``hard connector'' deviated too much from the 6.5 mm diameter 
designation for the Static Force Application Device 2 (SFAD 2), a test 
fixture used to test compliance with one aspect of FMVSS No. 225. The 
SFAD 2 is referenced in S9.4 and S15.3 of FMVSS No. 225 and is 
illustrated in Figures 17 and 18 of the standard.
    GM had already orally presented these comments during a GM-
requested meeting with NHTSA on April 25, 2001. A meeting record has 
been entered into the docket.
    NHTSA has thoroughly evaluated the data GM provided, carefully 
considered its subsequent explanations about the data, and also 
considered the comments submitted by Britax and Advocates. We disagree 
with GM's position. We consider the incompatibility problem to be very 
much safety related. When a child seat fails to latch onto the lower 
anchorages, the entire latch system will not work, regardless of how 
well the components are designed.
    GM has acknowledged that the lower anchorages do not comply with 
FMVSS No. 225, but also blamed the deviation of the opening of the 
``hard connectors'' on the Britax child seat. However, GM has not 
shown, and cannot show, that the Britax seat has an improper connector 
design or dimensions, since the dimensions for the SFAD do not apply to 
child restraint systems.
    Moreover, we disagree with each of the four ``reasons'' asserted by 
GM in support of the petition. First, we disagree with GM's assertion 
that there is no ``proposed U.S. child seat latch mechanism that would 
not be compatible with the anchors on the subject vehicles.'' As GM 
stated in its May 7, 2001 supplemental petition, the incompatibility 
problem was discovered when a demonstration of a Britax child seat with 
a LATCH ``hard connector'' failed to fit onto the lower anchorages in a 
2001 Pontiac Aztek vehicle. Based on the Britax comments, it is 
certainly possible, if not likely, that such a mechanism would be used 
on child restraint systems sold in the U.S. In any case, such a 
mechanism is clearly legal, and the current market decisions of all 
child restraint manufacturers do not preclude future restraints with 
``hard connectors.''
    GM's argument that since every child restraint is designed to work 
with the vehicle belt system in addition to the latch system, the child 
restraint will be able to be safely secured to the vehicle regardless 
of whether the latch mechanism works or not misses the point. The 
primary basis for the adoption of the LATCH requirements is to enhance 
safety beyond the level provided by the vehicle belt systems. The May 
7, 2001 GM supplement noted that ``[n]ational studies reflect an 
approximately 80% incorrect use rate. Many local checkups report misuse 
rate over 90%.'' (Attachment B, H.2., page C-5). Because of this high 
rate of misuse of the vehicle belt system, NHTSA adopted FMVSS No. 225 
to make it easier to properly attach a child seat to the vehicle by 
means of the lower bar system. The requirement in FMVSS No. 213 that a 
child seat must be designed to be restrained by means of the vehicle 
belt system is not an alternative, equivalent means for restraining a 
child. This provision was kept in the standard to ensure that new child 
restraint systems equipped with a latch system can also be used in 
older motor vehicles that are not equipped with a latch system and in 
aircraft.
    As to GM's statement that they ``do not foresee any problem with 
future designs and the anchors that are below 5.9 mm,'' neither we nor 
GM can predict future child restraint system designs. There may be a 
system that cannot properly attach to bars that are less than 5.9 mm in 
diameter, and remain engaged during a crash. The fact that a problem 
has not occurred does not mean that the problem will not occur in the 
future.
    GM acknowledged in its petition that in the future, ``it is 
possible that a slotted attachment could be designed and that the slot 
might be too small to accept some of these anchors that exceed 6.1 
mm.'' However, GM's proposal ``to address this situation'' by sending a 
letter to vehicle owners to advise them to ``use the vehicle belt 
system to attach the child seats'' would be inadequate for several 
reasons. First, for the reasons noted above, this would not provide an 
equivalent level of safety. Second, a consumer might fail to heed the 
warning against using the lower bars. Third, a consumer forced to use 
the vehicle belts might attach the seat incorrectly. And finally, such 
a letter would not warn subsequent owners of the vehicle.
    For the reasons stated above, NHTSA has decided that GM has not met 
its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described herein is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and the application is denied. 
Therefore, GM is required to provide notification of, and a remedy for, 
the noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

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

    Issued on: December 3, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-30357 Filed 12-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P