[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20170-20172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11026]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95-42; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AF67


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assemblies; 
Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document rescinds the colorfastness requirements for seat 
belt assemblies. The purpose of those requirements is to ensure that 
motorists are not discouraged from using safety belts out of a concern 
that the belts will transfer their coloring to the motorists' clothing. 
NHTSA concludes that manufacturer concerns about public acceptance are 
sufficient by themselves to ensure that manufacturers will continue to 
make their belts colorfast. Therefore, retention of the requirements is 
not necessary.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective 
June 20, 1996.
    Applicability Date: Seat belt assemblies manufactured after June 
20, 1996 are not required to meet the colorfastness requirements.
    Petition Date: Any petitions for reconsideration must be received 
by NHTSA no later than June 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
and notice number of this notice and be submitted to: Administrator, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590:
    For non-legal issues: Clarke Harper, Office of Vehicle Safety 
Standards, NPS-12, telephone (202) 366-4916, facsimile (202) 366-4329, 
electronic mail ``[email protected]''.
    For legal issues: Mary Versailles, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
NCC-20, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic 
mail ``[email protected]''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the March 4, 1995 directive, 
``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative,'' from the President to the heads 
of departments and agencies, NHTSA undertook a review of all its 
regulations and directives. During the course of that review, the 
agency identified several requirements and regulations as being 
potential candidates for rescission. On June 19, 1995, the agency 
published an NPRM proposing the rescission of several of those 
candidate requirements, including the colorfastness requirements in 
Standard No. 209, ``Seat Belt Assemblies'' (60 FR 31946).
    In the NPRM, NHTSA noted that it had included the colorfastness 
requirements in Standard No. 209 out of concern that occupants would be 
less likely to wear their seat belt if a lack of colorfastness of the 
webbing damaged their clothing. Paragraphs S4.2 (g) and (h) of the 
Standard require seat belt webbing to resist transferring color to a 
wet or dry crock cloth and to resist

[[Page 20171]]

staining (the colorfastness requirements). Test procedures for 
determining compliance with the colorfastness requirements are found in 
S5.1 (g) and (h) of the Standard.
    NHTSA tentatively concluded in the NPRM that market forces would be 
sufficient, in the absence of the current requirements, to induce seat 
belt manufacturers to use webbing that will not stain clothing. The 
agency noted that it was not aware of any basis for believing that 
rescission of the colorfastness requirements would lessen colorfastness 
or safety.
    Therefore, NHTSA proposed to delete the colorfastness requirements 
from Standard No. 209. NHTSA also proposed to delete references to 
these requirements in Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems.''
    The agency received 5 comments in response to the NPRM. The 
commenters were: the Industrial Fabrics Association International 
(IFAI), Chrysler, Volkswagen, the Automotive Occupant Restraints 
Council (AORC), and Ford.
    Three commenters (IFAI, Chrysler, and Ford) supported the proposal, 
indicating that the colorfastness would be maintained voluntarily. Two 
commenters (Volkswagen and AORC) opposed rescission of the 
requirements. Volkswagen believed that rescission would not reduce the 
cost burden on manufacturers as they would have to ensure colorfastness 
regardless. AORC opposed rescission more adamantly because they 
believed that, while major manufacturers would continue to comply, 
smaller, less experienced manufacturers might use non-colorfast 
webbing. They believed that this would result in increased consumer 
dissatisfaction, increased non-use of safety belts, and increased 
injuries.
    Because the comments were split, the agency contacted four 
additional sources not represented by the commenters: a safety belt 
manufacturer (Indiana Mills and Manufacturing), a child seat 
manufacturer (Gerry Baby Products Company), a test laboratory (Dayton 
T. Brown Testing), and a webbing manufacturer (Narricot Industries). 
The first three agreed that colorfastness would be voluntarily 
maintained. The webbing manufacturer expressed concern that market 
pressures could require it to reduce colorfastness to remain cost 
competitive.
    After reviewing this information, the agency has decided to rescind 
the colorfastness requirements. The majority of the manufacturers who 
commented or were contacted indicated that they would voluntarily 
maintain colorfastness, even if they had concerns that some others 
might not. While NHTSA understands the concern that market pressures 
for reducing costs might lead to a lessening of colorfastness, the 
agency believes that there is a countervailing market force that will 
minimize the possibility and extent of any such lessening of 
colorfastness. If a problem with colorfastness were to occur, the 
affected consumers would complain to the responsible manufacturer and 
likely insist on having the belt replaced, rather than forgoing use of 
the belt. Further, this countervailing force is much greater than it 
was when the colorfastness requirements were originally adopted. The 
proportion of the driving population likely to notice and complain 
about lack of colorfastness has grown substantially since the 1970's. 
Belt use has increased from 18 percent in those years to 67 percent 
today. In part, this increase is a reflection of consumers' increased 
interest in safety and understanding of the contribution that seat belt 
use makes to safety. The increase also reflects the existence now of 
safety belt use laws in 49 states and of child safety seat use laws in 
all 50 states. Thus, further increases in belt use are anticipated.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies 
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been 
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA believes 
that there would be no gain or loss of safety benefits from Standards 
Nos. 209 and 213 as a result of rescission of the colorfastness 
requirements. NHTSA also believes there will be no cost increases or 
savings for manufacturers.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. As explained above, NHTSA does not anticipate that this 
proposal will significantly economically impact small manufacturers, or 
small entities that purchase safety belts or vehicles.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated 
with this final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has also analyzed this final rule under the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have a 
significant impact on the human environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this rule 
will not have significant federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec. 571.209  [Amended]

    2. Section 571.209 is amended by removing S4.2(g), S4.2(h), S5.1(g) 
and S5.1(h).
    3. Section 571.213 is amended by revising S5.4.1(b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 571.213  Standard No. 213; Child restraint systems.

* * * * *

[[Page 20172]]

    S5.4.1 * * *
    (b) Meet the requirements of S4.2 (e) and (f) of FMVSS No. 209 
(Sec. 571.209); and
* * * * *
    Issued on April 29, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11026 Filed 5-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P