Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Notices 24253

locking retractor that will not meet the

0.7 g locking requirements of the

standard.

GM requested exemption from the

notice and remedy requirement of the

49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 49 U.S.C.

30120(h), because it believes this

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety.

S4.3(j)(1) of FMVSS No. 209 requires

that an emergency locking retractor of a

Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt assembly

‘‘shall lock before the webbing extends

25 mm when the retractor is subjected

to an acceleration of 7 m/s2 (0.7 g).’’

Some of the retractors in question

exhibit, to a varying degree, plastic flash

(burr) on the sensor lever near the pivot

where it mates to the sensor housing.

This flash can cause a nonconformance

with the 0.7 g locking requirement due

to potential increased drag of the sensor

lever in the housing.

Supporting Information as Submitted

by General Motors

GM reported the following analysis to

support the petition.

GM and its safety belt supplier located

retractors from the same build period (weeks

6–32 of 1999) as the subject retractors in

order to perform testing to investigate this

matter. A total of 1,392 retractors from this

build period were obtained and tested. Of

these, only 50 (3.5%) did not lock when

tested in each of four directions at 0.6 g (the

GM test specification level). Only 10 of those

(0.72% of the 1,392 total) did not lock when

tested 10 times in each of four directions at

0.7 g. Based on this testing, only a very small

portion of the subject retractors is expected

to not meet the 0.7 g requirement.

Additionally, GM compared the 0.7 g

retractor locking requirement to (1) the onset

of significant shoulder belt loading in S/T

truck crash tests and (2) the calculated sidepull coefficient often used to help assess

rollover propensity. These collision types

represent circumstances where the safety belt

certainly provides important safety benefits.

The crash test analysis indicates retractor

locking still occurs prior to any significant

safety belt loading or motion of the occupant

relative to the belt. The rollover analysis

indicates that safety belt retractor lock-up

will occur prior to rollover of these subject

vehicles.

Finally, as a result of tests performed on

the small quantity (10) of questionable

retractors that were available, GM also has

determined that the simulation of the

jouncing and jostling that vehicles are subject

to during transit to dealerships, either by rail

or truck (haulaway), generally reduces the

effect of the flash such that a large percentage

of the noncompliant vehicles become

compliant prior to transit completion. In the

case of rail transit, we estimate noncompliant

retractors to become compliant after four

hours of transit. Almost all vehicles shipped

by rail travel more than four hours. In the

case of simulated haulaway transit, six of

nine noncompliant retractors were compliant

after three hours of transit (approximately

150 miles), and seven of nine were compliant

after six hours of transit (approximately 300

miles). Approximately 90% of all S/T trucks

shipped by haulaway travel more than three

hours.

Accordingly, the already small number of

potentially noncompliant retractors will be

further reduced by the time they arrive at the

dealership. For the reasons outlined above,

GM believes that this noncompliance is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Accordingly GM petitions that it be exempt

from the remedy and recall provision of the

Motor Vehicle Safety Act in this case.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views and

arguments on the petition of GM,

described above. Comments should refer

to the Docket Number and be submitted

to: Docket Management, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Room PL 401, 400 7th 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, a Notice will be published in

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: May 25, 2000.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8)

Issued on: April 19, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–10246 Filed 4–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7164; Notice 1]

Suzuki Motor Corp.; Receipt of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Suzuki Motor Corporation of

Hamamatsu, Japan, has determined that

1,595 vehicles 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.

This notice of receipt of an

application 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 application.

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 stepby-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 manual 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

24254 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Notices

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 for

‘‘...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.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application of Suzuki

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and be submitted

to: U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. It is requested, but not required,

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 possible.

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: May 25, 2000.

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: April 19, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–10245 Filed 4–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Petition for Exemption From the

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard;

Ford

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

SUMMARY: This document grants in full

the petition of Ford Motor Company

(Ford) for an exemption of a high-theft

line, the Mercury Sable, from the partsmarking requirements of the Federal

Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention

Standard. This petition is granted

because the agency has determined that

the antitheft device to be placed on the

line as standard equipment is likely to

be as effective in reducing and deterring

motor vehicle theft as compliance with

the parts-marking requirements of the

Theft Prevention Standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this

notice is effective beginning with model

year (MY) 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Rosalind Proctor, Office of Planning and

Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington DC

20590. Ms. Proctor’s telephone number

is (202) 366–0846. Her fax number is

(202) 493–2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a

petition dated December 13, 1999, Ford

requested an exemption from the parts

marking requirements of the Theft

Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541)

for the Mercury Sable vehicle line

beginning in MY 2001. The petition is

pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption

From Vehicle Theft Prevention

Standard, which provides for

exemptions based on the installation of

an antitheft device as standard

equipment for the entire line.

Review of Ford’s petition disclosed

that certain information was not

provided in its original petition.

Consequently, by telephone call on

February 28 and March 15, 2000, Ford

was informed of its areas of deficiency.

Subsequently on February 28 and March

17, 2000, Ford submitted its

supplemental information addressing

these deficiencies. Ford’s February 28

and March 17, 2000 faxes together

constitute a complete petition, as

required by 49 CFR Part 543.7, in that

it met the general requirements

contained in § 543.5 and the specific

content requirements of § 543.6.

In its petition, Ford provided a

detailed description and diagram of the

identity, design, and location of the

components of the antitheft device for

the new line. Ford will install its

antitheft device, the SecuriLock Passive

Anti-Theft Electronic Engine

Immobilizer System (SecuriLock) as

standard equipment on the MY 2001

Mercury Sable. The system has already

been installed as standard equipment on

its MY 2000 Sable.

In order to ensure the reliability and

durability of the device, Ford conducted

tests, based on its own specified

standards. Ford provided a detailed list

of the tests conducted and stated its

belief that the device is reliable and

durable since it complied with Ford’s

specified requirements for each test. The

environmental and functional tests

conducted were for thermal shock, high

temperature exposure, low-temperature

exposure, powered/thermal cycle,

temperature/humidity cycling, constant

humidity, end-of-line, functional,

random vibration, tri-temperature

parametric, bench drop, transmit

current, lead/lock strength/integrity,

output frequency, resistance to solvents,

output field strength, dust, and

electromagnetic compatibility. Ford

requested confidential treatment for

some of the information and

attachments submitted in support of its

petition. In a letter to Ford dated August

4, 1998, the agency granted its request

for confidential treatment of certain

aspects of its petition.

The Ford SecuriLock is a transponderbased electronic immobilizer system.

The device is activated when the driver/

operator turns off the engine by using

the properly coded ignition key. When

the ignition key is turned to the start

position, the transponder (located in the

head of the key) transmits a code to the

powertrain’s electronic control module.

The vehicle’s engine can only be started

if the transponder code matches the

code previously programmed into the

powertrain’s electronic control module.

If the code does not match, the engine

will be disabled. Ford stated that there

are seventy-two quadrillion different

codes and each transponder is hardVerDate 18<APR>2000 12:55 Apr 24, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 25APN1