[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24252-24253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10246]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000-7125, Notice 1]


General Motors Corp.; Receipt of Application for Determination of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    General Motors Corporation (GM) has applied to be exempted from the 
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 ``Motor 
Vehicle Safety'' for a noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, ``Seat Belt Assemblies,'' on the basis that 
the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. GM has 
filed a report of a noncompliance pursuant to 49 CFR part 573 ``Defects 
and Noncompliance Reports.''
    This notice of receipt of the 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.

Description of Noncompliance

    GM has determined that the driver safety belt assembly in some GM 
S/T pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles does not meet the 
requirements of S4.3(j)(1) of FMVSS 209. The vehicles involved are 
model year 1999 and 2000 versions of the Chevrolet S-10 and GMC Sonoma 
pickups and the Chevrolet Blazer/Trail Blazer, GMC Jimmy/Envoy, and 
Oldsmobile Bravada utility vehicles. Some of these trucks were built 
with a driver safety belt emergency

[[Page 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/s<SUP>2</SUP> (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 side-pull 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