Federal Register
Thursday, March 10, 1977
Washington, D.C.
Volume 42, Number 47
Pages 13265-13532

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1977-03-10/pdf/FR-1977-03-10.pdf

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. IP76-12; Notice 2]

SEBRING VANGUARD, INC.

Petition for Exemption From Notice and Remedy for Inconsequential Noncompliance

This notice denies the petition by Sebring Vanguard, Inc. to be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) for an apparent noncompliance with 49 CFR 571.208, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Sebring Vanguard had petitioned on the basis th at the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Notice of the petition was published on December 2, 1976 (41 FR 52933) and an opportunity afforded for comment.

Standard No. 208 requires seat belt assemblies to adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor. Petitioner reported that it manufactured 1,576 CitiCar passenger cars between January 24, 1975, and August 7, 1976, with seat belt assemblies lacking the required retractors. In support of its petition Sebring Vanguard cited “the small number of vehicles in use by the public” and the adverse financial impact upon the company that a notification and remedy campaign would entail. Conforming assemblies, however, were said to be available and could be used in future production. Finally, the company argued that it is making a contribution to the development of a practical alternative to the internal combustion engine by marketing its electric vehicle.

Two comments were received in response to the notice, both “strongly” opposing the petition. Consumers Union, on the basis of its experience in testing two of petitioner’s products, discussed the vehicle’s “substandard crash-worthiness” and the consequent importance of the required use of occupant restraints by passengers to prevent them from impacting interior components or being ejected from the vehicle in the event of a collision. Mr. R. H. Hommel of Dearborn, Michigan pointed out that locking retractors have been available for “at least 10 years” and expressed his opinion that “convenient usable restraint systems are especially important on small poorly constructed vehicles.”

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concurs with these comments. The promotion of the use of restraint systems has been one of the primary concerns over the past decade in Federal efforts to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents. Features designed for ease of use and user comfort will encourage passengers to avail themselves of the protection that these systems offer. The agency has also weighed the views of Consumers Union, as expressed in the October 1976 issue of “Consumer Reports”, commenting on the difficulty of normal adjustment of petitioner’s nonconforming belt System. The NHTSA believes that the addition of the retractor features to Citicars that do not have them, through a notification and remedy campaign, will provide greater ease of adjustment and result in a higher incidence of use of a device with known and demonstrable safety potential.

Sebring Vanguard, Inc., has not met its burden of convincing this agency that noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its petition is hereby denied.

(Sec. 102, Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1417); delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.)

Issued on March 2, 1977.

Robert L. Carter,
Associate Administrator,
Motor Vehicle Programs.

[FR Doc.77-6766 Filed 3-9-77;8:45 am]