[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 129 (Monday, July 7, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36251-36253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17628]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 97-44; Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AG48


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assemblies

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: In response to a petition from the Association of 
International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), this document 
proposes to amend Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, by deleting 
the requirement in S4.1(b) that the lap belt portion of a safety belt 
system be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions. The 
agency has tentatively determined that other provisions in Standard No. 
209, and provisions in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and 
Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, provide adequate and 
more readily enforceable requirements for pelvic restraint. Therefore, 
the agency believes that deleting the pelvic restraint requirement in 
Standard No. 209 would cause no detriment to safety. This proposal is 
consistent with the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, 
which directs Federal agencies to identify and eliminate unnecessary 
Federal Regulations.

DATES: Comment Date: Comments must be received by September 5, 1997.
    Proposed Effective Date: If adopted, the proposed amendments would 
become effective September 1, 1998.

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.)

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: Mr. John Lee, Office of Crashworthiness 
Standards, NPS-11, telephone (202) 366-4924, facsimile (202) 366-4329, 
electronic mail ``[email protected]''.
    For legal issues: Mr. Edward Glancy, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
NCC-20, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic 
mail ``[email protected]''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt 
Assemblies, specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies, including 
the pelvic restraint and the upper torso restraint. Other requirements 
address the release mechanism, the attachment hardware, the adjustment, 
the webbing, the strap, and marking and other informational 
instructions. Standard No. 209 was patterned after an existing 
Department of Commerce standard, which was adopted from a Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard. (29 FR 16973, December 11, 1964)
    In Standard No. 209, section S4.1(b) Pelvic restraint states:

    A seat belt assembly shall provide pelvic restraint whether or 
not upper torso restraint is provided, and the pelvic restraint 
shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, 
including collision or roll-over of the motor vehicle. Pelvic 
restraint of a Type 2 seat belt assembly that can be used without 
upper torso restraint shall comply with requirement for Type 1 seat 
belt assembly in S4.1 to S4.4.

    No National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
rulemaking proceeding, SAE, or Department of Commerce standard has 
discussed the rationale of S4.1 (b). The agency believes that the main 
purpose of having S4.1(b) is to ensure that the lap belt remains on the 
pelvis, to provide a strong, bony support for belt loads incurred 
during a crash, rather than imposing the loads on the soft, abdominal 
region or the femurs. The iliac crest of the pelvic bone provides a 
natural ``detent'' which helps to retain the belt on the pelvic bone.
    Submarining which may occur in a crash tends to displace the lap 
belt from its optimum position on the pelvis and moves it to the more 
vulnerable, soft abdominal area.
    In response to a letter from Mr. H. George Johannessen of the 
Automotive Occupant Restraint Council asking about the meaning of 
S4.1(b), NHTSA issued an interpretation letter dated August 11, 1991 
that stated:

    * * * we believe that the requirement of S4.1(b) of Standard No. 
209 means that safety belts must be designed to be capable of being 
properly adjusted and positioned on the pelvis of occupants ranging 
from 6-year-old children to 95th percentile adult males. The belts 
must also be capable of remaining on the pelvis of such occupants 
during collision or roll-over. A belt system that was not capable of 
being positioned on the pelvis and remaining there during crashes 
would not comply with S4.1(b).

II. Rulemaking Petition

    On May 24, 1996, the Association of International Automobile 
Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM) petitioned NHTSA to delete S4.1(b) of 
Standard No. 209. That organization stated that this provision was an 
appropriate candidate for deletion in accordance with the President's 
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, which directed Federal agencies to 
identify rules that are unnecessary or that should be clarified.
    AIAM stated that the phrase ``designed to remain on the pelvis 
under all conditions'' was redundant of other, more specific and more 
stringent requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 
Standard No. 209, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 
which already provide specific requirements about pelvic restraint. As 
an example,

[[Page 36252]]

that organization stated that Section S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208 
requires that safety belts be adjustable to fit ``persons whose 
dimensions range from those of a 50th percentile 6 year old child to 
those of a 95th percentile adult (male).'' In addition, the petitioner 
claimed that the range of adjustment in Standard No. 208 is more 
stringent than Standard No. 209.
    AIAM stated that Standard No. 209 does not appear to be addressing 
safety belt performance issues as effectively as Standard No. 208 and 
Standard No. 210 have addressed them in recent years. AIAM listed 
several examples of improvements to safety belt performance in FMVSS 
No. 208 (e.g., improved comfort, dynamic testing of manual safety 
belts, lap/shoulder belts in rear outboard seating positions, etc.) and 
FMVSS No. 210 (e.g., 30 degree lap belt angle).
    AIAM further stated that the only rulemaking proceeding involving 
Standard No. 209 in recent years was one that removed obsolete 
provisions and reconciled the requirements of Standard No. 209 with 
Standard No. 208's dynamic testing requirements.

III. NHTSA Response and Proposal

    NHTSA tentatively concludes that S4.1(b) is not an effective 
requirement as currently drafted. It needs to be either clarified or 
deleted. The provision ``* * * the pelvic restraint shall be designed 
to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or 
roll-over * * *'' raises a question: If a lap belt does not remain on 
the pelvis during a crash, is that sufficient to establish that the 
belt is not ``designed'' to remain on the pelvis under all conditions? 
Further, the meaning of the words, ``remain on the pelvis,'' is 
unclear. Thus, the requirement appears to be unenforceable in its 
current form and is a candidate for regulatory reform.
    After reviewing the available information, NHTSA has decided to 
propose amending Standard No. 209 by deleting S4.1(b). The agency 
believes that Standard No. 208, other provisions in Standard No. 209, 
and Standard No. 210 contain adequate and more specific requirements 
that together ensure effective pelvic restraint. The fitting 
requirements of Standard No. 208 establish requirements that the lap 
belt portion of the safety belt must fit persons from a six-year-old 
child to a 95th percentile adult male. Two other requirements, one in 
Standard No. 210 and the other in Standard No. 209 itself, specify 
safety belt fit and reduce the likelihood of occupant submarining. The 
agency amended S4.3.1 of Standard No. 210 in 1990 to increase the 
minimum lap belt angle to 30 degrees, specifically to improve belt fit 
and reduce the potential of occupant submarining. (55 FR 17970, April 
30, 1990) In addition, section S4.3(j) of Standard No. 209 requires 
that an emergency-locking retractor lock before the webbing extends one 
inch when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7g. This 
requirement prevents belt webbing from playing out in a crash. NHTSA 
tentatively concludes that the fitting requirements in Standard No. 208 
together with the lap belt angle in Standard No. 210 and emergency-
locking retractor requirements in Standard No. 209 provide assurance 
that the lap belt would reduce the likelihood of occupant submarining.
    Based on these considerations, the agency believes that deleting 
the pelvic restraint requirement in section S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 
would cause no detriment to safety, and is accordingly proposing to 
delete it.

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. There would be no 
apparent cost savings or added costs. Deletion of this section would 
not result in any manufacturing changes or deletion of compliance 
tests. There are no apparent benefits (other than the deletion of a 
requirement that does not add to safety) or disbenefits. Deletion of 
this section should not result in any design or performance changes on 
motor vehicle restraints.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. 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.

[[Page 36253]]

    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 571.209 would be amended by removing and reserving 
S4.1(b) to read as follows:


Sec. 571.209  Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

* * * * *
    S4.1 * * *
    (b) [Reserved]
* * * * *

    Issued on: June 30, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-17628 Filed 7-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P