[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 146 (Monday, July 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39432-39434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19068]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 99]
RIN 2127-AG24


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a petition from the Ford Motor Company, this 
document proposes a limited extension of the compliance date of a 
recent rule improving safety belt fit by requiring that Type 2 safety 
belts installed for adjustable seats in vehicles with a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less either be integrated with 
the vehicle seat or be equipped with a means of adjustability to 
improve the fit and increase the comfort of the belt for a variety of 
different sized occupants. The extension would apply only to trucks 
with a GVWR of more than 8,500 pounds.

DATES: Comment Date: Comments must be received by September 12, 1996.

    Proposed Effective Date: If adopted, the proposed amendments would 
become effective September 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of 
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.)


[[Page 39433]]


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 Crashworthiness 
Standards, NPS-11, telephone (202) 366-2264, facsimile (202) 366-4329, 
electronic mail ``[email protected]''.
    For legal issues: Edward Glancy, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail 
``[email protected]''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 3, 1994, NHTSA published a final 
rule amending Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to improve 
safety belt fit and thus the rate of belt use by requiring that Type 2 
safety belts installed for adjustable seats in vehicles with a gross 
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less either be 
integrated with the vehicle seat or be equipped with a means of 
adjustability to improve the fit and increase the comfort of the belt 
for a variety of different sized occupants (59 FR 39472). The final 
rule specified that this amendment become effective September 1, 1997.
    On December 22, 1995, the Ford Motor Company (Ford) petitioned the 
agency to extend the effective date of this new requirement for 
vehicles with a GVWR between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds. Ford requested 
that the effective date be extended to January 1, 1998.
    In its petition, Ford stated that, due to unexpected developmental 
problems with a new truck platform, it will be unable to begin 
production by September 1, 1997 as expected. Therefore, it will be 
necessary to continue to produce the current truck platform it will 
replace for four months beyond the effective date of the new belt fit 
requirement. Ford requested the leadtime extension to avoid having to 
redesign the existing platform for only a four-month production.
    In its petition, Ford stated that the extension would affect 45,000 
F-series pickup trucks. The GVWRs of these vehicles are between 8,500 
and 10,000 pounds. Because Ford comprises approximately 45 percent of 
the light truck market, NHTSA estimates that the requested leadtime 
extension would affect a total of 100,000 vehicles. These trucks 
include cargo vans, pick-ups and incomplete vehicles. Ford stated that 
redesign of this limited number of vehicles to meet the September 1, 
1997 effective date would cost $4.5 million, resulting in a per vehicle 
cost of $100. In the final rule, NHTSA estimated that the belt fit 
requirement would cost $5.51 per light truck. For NHTSA cost estimates, 
the development and certification costs are amortized over the lifetime 
of the redesigned model, which usually results in a low per vehicle 
cost.
    Ford argued that the driver population of the affected vehicles is 
predominantly male and is less in need of belt fit adjustability than 
the driver population of the average vehicle. In support of this 
argument, Ford said that two-thirds of the affected vehicles are 
commercial vehicles (a large percentage of which are driven by males) 
and that 92 percent of the remaining one-third are driven also by 
males. Ford also noted that males tend to be taller than females, and 
improved belt fit is primarily intended to benefit shorter occupants.
    After reviewing the petition, NHTSA has decided to propose to 
extend the effective date of the belt fit requirement until January 1, 
1998 for trucks with a GVWR of more than 8,500 pounds. The reasons for 
this proposal are explained below.
    NHTSA has examined the demographics of the occupants of the 
affected trucks, and agrees that the occupants of the affected trucks 
are more likely to be male and thus larger than those of the lower GVWR 
vehicles, and therefore their rate of belt use would be less likely to 
be affected by improvements in belt fit. Accordingly, the benefits from 
applying the belt fit requirement to those trucks would be less than 
the benefits of applying it to lower GVWR vehicles. An examination of 
1993 through 1994 National Accident Sampling System (NASS) files shows 
that the mean value of occupant size was two inches taller for trucks 
affected by the Ford petition. In addition, for trucks below an 
unloaded weight of 5,500 pounds (approximately equal to 8,500 pounds 
GVWR), 12 percent of front seat occupants are under 5 feet 2 inches, 
while for trucks over 5,500 pounds unloaded weight, only six percent of 
front seat occupants are below this height.
    In the final rule, NHTSA characterized the anticipated benefits of 
the belt fit requirement as follows:

    NHTSA believes that some occupants who find their safety belts 
to be uncomfortable react to their discomfort either by wearing 
their safety belts incorrectly or by not wearing them at all. NHTSA 
believes that improving safety belt fit will encourage the correct 
use of safety belts and could increase the overall safety belt usage 
rate. (59 FR 39472, at 39473)

    As noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding the final 
rule, complaints concerning belt fit received by the agency are often 
from shorter adults. (59 FR 21740, 21741; April 26, 1994) If the 
majority of the occupants of the trucks affected by the Ford petition 
are not in the group of people who most often report complaints with 
belt fit, there would be less opportunity to increase belt usage 
through improved belt fit.
    Based on the Final Regulatory Evaluation of the safety belt fit 
rule (Docket 74-14, Notice 91), the potential maximum benefits for 
light trucks was 9 fatalities and 102 injuries per year, based on an 
annual production of 3.4 million vehicles. The estimated affected 
population for this proposal is 100,000 vehicles, therefore, the 
potential reduction in benefits would be 0.3 fatalities and 3 injuries 
per year. In addition, if Ford's argument that the affected vehicles 
are not widely used by persons who benefit from the belt fit rule is 
accurate, the potential reduction in benefits would be even less.
    Finally, as noted in the Ford petition, the economic impact of 
requiring Ford to go ahead and comply would be much greater than the 
costs anticipated by the agency for compliance with the belt fit 
requirement. Using NHTSA's estimated per vehicle costs, the cost 
savings resulting from not requiring the 100,000 light trucks to comply 
would be $551,000 to $745,000, not counting redesign costs for the Ford 
vehicles that would shortly be taken off the market. If one were to 
accept Ford's estimation of $100 per vehicle cost savings for its 
45,000 vehicles plus NHTSA's estimation of $5.51 to $7.45 per vehicle 
cost savings for the remaining 55,000 vehicles, the total estimated 
cost reduction would be $4.8 to $4.9 million.
    Because the safety benefits for the affected trucks are likely to 
be very small, and the costs accentuated, a four-month extension of 
leadtime would be reasonable.

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. As explained earlier, the agency 
estimates a cost savings of $4.8 to $4.9 million.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act: NHTSA has also considered the impacts 
of this

[[Page 39434]]

notice under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. As explained above, NHTSA does 
not anticipate a significant economic impact on any manufacturer from 
this proposal. For consumers, granting this extension would slightly 
reduce the cost of these trucks, especially the Ford trucks, compared 
to their cost if the extension is not granted.
    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 proposed rule.
    National Environmental Policy Act: NHTSA has also analyzed this 
proposed rule under the National Environmental Policy Act and 
determined that it would not have a significant impact on the human 
environment.
    Executive Order 12612 (Federalism): NHTSA has analyzed this 
proposal in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in 
E.O. 12612, and has determined that this proposed rule would not have 
significant federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.
    Civil Justice Reform: This proposed rule would 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.

Submission of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal. 
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and 
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address 
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed 
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too 
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered 
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal 
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue 
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket 
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons 
continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR part 
571 be amended as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 would continue 
to read as follows:

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

    2. Section 571.208 would be amended by revising S7.1.2 and adding a 
new S7.1.2.3 to read as follows:


Sec. 571.208  Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

* * * * *
    7.1.2  Except as provided in S7.1.2.1, S7.1.2.2, and S7.1.2.3, for 
each Type 2 seat belt assembly which is required by Standard No. 208 
(49 CFR 571.208), the upper anchorage, or the lower anchorage nearest 
the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt, shall include a 
movable component which has a minimum of two adjustment positions. The 
distance between the geometric center of the movable component at the 
two extreme adjustment positions shall be not less than five 
centimeters, measured linearly. If the component required by this 
paragraph must be manually moved between adjustment positions, 
information shall be provided in the owner's manual to explain how to 
adjust the seat belt and warn that misadjustment could reduce the 
effectiveness of the safety belt in a crash.
* * * * *
    S7.1.2.3  The requirements of S7.1.2 do not apply to any truck with 
a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 8,500 pounds manufactured 
before January 1, 1998.
* * * * *
    Issued on July 22, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-19068 Filed 7-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P