[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 3, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10355-10357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5455]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-97-3242; Notice 3]
RIN 2127-AF67


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

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

ACTION: Denial of petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies three petitions for reconsideration of 
NHTSA's May 1996 final rule rescinding the colorfastness requirements 
for seat belt assemblies. The petitions are denied because the 
petitioners, the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), Russell 
J. Neff and Narricot Industries (NI), have, with one exception, not 
raised any new issues or presented any new information that was not 
considered in issuing the final rule.
    AORC and NI both raised a new issue, i.e., the potential for 
toxicity in non-colorfast dyes. However, neither petitioner submitted 
any information supporting their allegations that non-colorfast dyes 
might be toxic. NHTSA observes that regardless of colorfastness, there 
has never been a toxicity requirement incorporated in Standard No. 209. 
In the absence of any evidence that non-colorfast dyes for webbing are 
toxic or that such dyes would be more likely to be used if the 
colorfastness requirement is not reinstated, the agency is denying the 
petition.

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-11, 
telephone (202) 366-4916, facsimile (202) 366-4329, electronic mail 
``[email protected]''.
For legal issues:
    Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-20, telephone (202)

[[Page 10356]]

366-5263, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail 
``[email protected]''.

I. Background

    The colorfastness requirement was initially promulgated as part of 
initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for both seat belt 
assemblies and child restraint systems. 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. On June 19, 1995, the agency published 
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing the rescission of the 
colorfastness requirements in Standard No. 209, ``Seat Belt 
Assemblies'' and Standard No. 213 ``Child Restraint Systems'' (60 FR 
31946). After considering the comments received in response to the 
NPRM, NHTSA issued a final rule on May 6, 1996 (61 FR 20170) rescinding 
the colorfastness requirements.

II. Rescission of the Colorfastness Requirements

A. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In its June 19, 1995 NPRM proposing to rescind the colorfastness 
requirements, the agency stated its tentative conclusion that market 
forces would be sufficient to encourage seat belt manufacturers to use 
webbing that would not stain clothing. The agency also indicated that 
it was not aware of any basis for believing that eliminating the 
colorfastness requirements would reduce colorfastness or safety.

B. Final Rule and Response to Public Comments

    On May 6, 1996, NHTSA issued a final rule rescinding the 
colorfastness requirements (61 FR 20170). 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.
    Because the public comments bear directly on the issues raised in 
the petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA is discussing below the 
comments raised in opposition to the NPRM. Three commenters (IFAI, 
Chrysler, and Ford) supported the proposal, indicating that the 
colorfastness would be maintained voluntarily. Two commenters 
(Volkswagen and AORC) opposed rescinding the requirements. Volkswagen 
believed that rescission would not reduce the cost burden on 
manufacturers because they would have to ensure colorfastness 
notwithstanding the absence of a requirement. AORC opposed rescission 
more adamantly because it believed that, while major manufacturers 
would continue to comply, smaller, less experienced manufacturers might 
use non-colorfast webbing. It 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 sources agreed that colorfastness would be voluntarily 
maintained. Narricot Industries expressed concern that market pressures 
could require it to reduce colorfastness to remain cost competitive.
    After reviewing this information, the agency decided to issue the 
final rule rescinding 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. NHTSA concluded that countervailing market 
forces would minimize the possibility and extent of any such lessening 
of colorfastness. The agency noted that 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, instead of 
forgoing use of the belt. NHTSA also concluded that the proportion of 
the driving population likely to notice and complain about lack of 
colorfastness has grown substantially since the 1970's in parallel to 
the increase in seat belt use.

III. Petitions for Reconsideration

    In separate submissions, the Automotive Occupant Restraint Council 
(AORC), Narricot Industries (NI) and Russell Neff petitioned NHTSA to 
reconsider the rescission of the colorfastness requirements. The NI 
petition, dated June 18, 1996, argued that the colorfastness 
requirement should not be rescinded because a neglect of colorfastness 
by smaller equipment and aftermarket manufacturers could cause 
increased consumer resistance to belt use. The NI petition also 
indicated that children may ingest dyes and chemicals exuded from 
webbing with poor colorfastness and thereby be exposed to toxic 
materials.
    The petitions submitted by AORC and Russell Neff on June 20, 1996, 
repeated the concerns voiced by NI in regard to consumer resistance to 
belt use caused by poor colorfastness. AORC also indicated that it was 
concerned about the possible toxicity of dyes and chemicals from belts 
that were not colorfast.
    NI and Russell Neff stated their concern that the market for seat 
belt webbing extends beyond supplying large vehicle and child seat 
manufacturers with webbing for installation in their products. In the 
view of these petitioners, the existence of other markets, such as 
webbing for installation in conversion vans, school buses, recreational 
vehicles, the automotive aftermarket, and others, creates an 
opportunity for manufacturers of lower quality webbing to sell non-
colorfast products while certifying that these products meet Standards 
No. 209 and 213.

IV. Agency Response

    The agency notes that with the exception of the concerns raised 
regarding the toxicity of dyes and chemicals from non-colorfast belts, 
that the arguments submitted by the petitioners had previously been 
considered by the agency before issuing the final rule. NHTSA's 
conclusion at that time was that market forces would be sufficient to 
compel manufacturers to use webbing that would remain colorfast. While 
reiterating their view that market forces may encourage the use of non-
colorfast webbing by suppliers seeking to offer a product of minimal 
quality at the lowest possible price, the petitioners have not 
submitted any new information to support that conclusion. The 
petitioners have also failed to provide any information refuting the 
agency's conclusion that consumers would not accept non-colorfast 
belts. As outlined in the notice establishing the final rule, seat belt 
use has increased substantially and dramatically since the 1970's. 
Increased belt use indicates that consumers have an increased interest 
in safety and a greater understanding of the role that seat belt use 
plays in preventing injury. Also, all 50 states have some form of child 
restraint law and 49 states mandate seat belt use. Consumers who must 
use seat belts or who understand the vital role seat belts play in 
safety, are not likely to tolerate belts that stain their clothing.
    NHTSA also observes that agency discussions with a test facility, 
U.S. Testing, that has performed compliance

[[Page 10357]]

testing for Standards No. 209 and 213 for over 20 years indicate that 
dyeing and coloring techniques for belt webbing have improved greatly 
since belt installation and use have become both required and more 
widespread.
    Two of the petitioners, AORC and NI, also indicated that non-
colorfast dyes may present an opportunity for toxic materials to come 
in contact with infants and children who may introduce belt webbing 
into their mouths. These petitioners have consistently argued that 
lower cost non-colorfast webbing may enter the marketplace if the 
colorfastness requirement is eliminated. In the view of the 
petitioners, non-colorfast dyes are more likely to be toxic than 
colorfast ones and that webbing made with toxic dyes is less expensive 
to produce than other webbing. However, the agency notes that neither 
petitioner provided any evidence that dyes used for webbing, regardless 
of cost, are toxic. Petitioners also did not offer any evidence that 
color transfer from non-colorfast webbing commonly used in webbing 
could cause injury. NHTSA further observes that neither Standard No. 
209 or Standard No. 213 have ever required that webbing, whether 
colorfast or not, be non-toxic. Reinstatement of the colorfastness 
requirements would therefore do little to address this concern.

V. Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration

    NHTSA has carefully considered the issues raised in the separate 
petitions for reconsideration filed by the Automotive Occupant 
Restraint Council (AORC), Narricot Industries (NI) and Russell Neff. As 
explained in this document, NHTSA concludes that petitioners' arguments 
for reinstating the colorfastness requirements of Standard No. 209 and 
Standard No. 213 are not sufficiently persuasive to warrant such 
reinstatement. Therefore, the petitions for reconsideration are denied.

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

    Issued on: February 26, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-5455 Filed 3-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P