[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 10, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6591-6595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3294]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571


Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by 
the Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers (COSVAM). COSVAM 
requested that small volume automobile manufacturers be given 
additional time to comply with the phase-in of the upper interior head 
protection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Specifically, COSVAM 
requested that the agency initiate a rulemaking proceeding to create 
alternative compliance dates to address concerns of manufacturers 
producing or importing 10,000 vehicles per year or less. The petitioner 
based its request on the argument that compliance costs for such 
manufacturers would be disproportionately burdensome. NHTSA denies this 
petition because the agency

[[Page 6592]]

has already established a variety of compliance schedules that afford 
these manufacturers sufficient compliance flexibility.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For non-legal issues: Dr. William Fan, Office of Crashworthiness 
Standards, NPS-11, telephone (202) 366-4922, facsimile (202) 366-4329, 
electronic mail ``[email protected]''
    For legal issues: Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, telephone (202) 366-5253, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail 
``[email protected]''. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background on Existing Requirements

    NHTSA issued a final rule on August 18, 1995, amending Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior 
Impact, to require passenger cars, and trucks, buses and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, to provide head protection during a 
crash when an occupant's head strikes the upper interior, i.e., the 
pillars, side rails, headers, and the roof of the vehicle. (60 FR 
43041) This final rule, which mandated compliance with the new 
requirements beginning on September 1, 1998, significantly expanded the 
scope of Standard 201. Previously, the standard applied to the 
instrument panel, seat backs, interior compartment doors, arm rests and 
sun visors. To determine compliance with the upper interior impact 
requirements, the final rule added procedures for a new in-vehicle 
component test in which a Free Motion Headform (FMH) is fired at 
certain target locations on the upper interior of a vehicle at an 
impact speed of 24 km/h (15 mph). Data collected from a FMH impact are 
translated into a value known as a Head Injury Criterion (HIC) score. 
The resultant HIC must not exceed 1000.
    The standard, as further amended on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718), 
provides manufacturers with four alternate phase-in schedules for 
complying with the upper interior impact requirements. First, as set 
forth in S6.1.1, manufacturers may comply by having the following 
percentages of their production meet the upper interior impact 
requirements: 10 percent of production on or after September 1, 1998 
and before September 1, 1999; 25 percent of production on or after 
September 1, 1999 and before September 1, 2000, 40 percent of 
production on or after September 1, 2000 and before September 1, 2001, 
70 percent of production on or after September 1, 2001 and before 
September 1, 2002, and 100 percent of production after September 1, 
2002.
    Second, an alternative schedule set forth in S6.1.2 provides that 
manufacturers may comply by meeting the following phase-in schedule: 7 
percent of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and 
before September 1, 1999; 31 percent of vehicles manufactured on or 
after September 1, 1999 and before September 1, 2000; 40 percent of 
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and before 
September 1, 2001; 70 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2001 and before September 1, 2002; and 100 percent of all 
vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2002.
    Third, under the phase-in schedule set forth in S6.1.3, 
manufacturers need not produce any complying vehicles before September 
1, 1999. However, all vehicles produced on or after that date must 
comply. Fourth, under the phase-in schedule set forth in S 6.1.4 that 
applies only to final stage manufacturers, no vehicle produced before 
September 1, 2002, need comply. However, all vehicles manufactured on 
or after that date must comply.

The August 14, 1996 Petition for Rulemaking

    The Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers (COSVAM) 
1 submitted a petition for rulemaking on August 14, 1996 
seeking to amend Standard 201 so that Small Volume Manufacturers (SVMs) 
would not be required to produce any cars meeting the upper interior 
head impact protection requirements between September 1, 1998 and 
September 1, 2004. Under the amendments requested by COSVAM in its 
petition, single stage SVMs would not have had to produce any vehicles 
meeting the upper interior impact requirements until September 1, 2004. 
On and after that date, all SVMs would have had to meet those 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ COSVAM consists of 19 manufacturers, each of which produces 
fewer than 5000 vehicles world wide each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The December 18, 1997 Petition for Rulemaking

    On November 5, 1997, COSVAM withdrew its August 14, 1996 petition 
and submitted a new petition on December 18, 1997. This second petition 
asked that the agency consider three possibilities:
     revising an existing phase-in schedule generally available 
to all manufacturers,
     adopting an additional alternative phase-in that might 
either be generally available to all manufacturers or available to SVMs 
only, or
     adopting an additional alternative phase-in available to 
SVMs only.
    More specifically, COSVAM suggested first that the agency revise an 
existing schedule found in S6.1.3 of the Standard (known as phase-in 
schedule #3). This schedule specifies that manufacturers need not 
produce any vehicles that comply with the head impact protection 
provisions of Standard 201 in the period after August 31, 1998 and 
before September 1, 1999 if all the vehicles they produce on or after 
September 1, 1999 comply with the head impact protection requirements. 
COSVAM suggested that this schedule be modified so that manufacturers 
need not produce any complying vehicles before September 1, 2000 if all 
the vehicles they produce after September 1, 2000 comply.
    Second, COSVAM suggested that the agency consider creating an 
additional phase-in schedule, which COSVAM suggested might only apply 
to SVMs. Under this schedule, five percent of a manufacturer's 
production for the time period between September 1, 1998 and August 31, 
1999 must comply with the head impact requirements, fifteen percent of 
production between September 1, 1999 and August 31, 2000 must comply, 
fifty percent of production between September 1, 2000 and August 31, 
2001 must comply, seventy percent of production between September 1, 
2001 and August 31, 2002 must comply and all production after September 
1, 2002 must comply.
    Third, COSVAM asked that NHTSA consider creating a phase-in 
expressly for single stage SVMs. Such a phase-in would delay compliance 
for these manufacturers until on or after September 1, 2004. For the 
purposes of determining which companies are SVMs and thus eligible to 
elect to comply with this alternative phase-in, COSVAM suggested that 
NHTSA define an SVM as ``any automobile producer that either 
manufactures 10,000 or fewer vehicles in the United States or imports 
fewer than 10,000 vehicles into the U.S.'' In suggesting this 
definition, COSVAM contended that setting a limit of 10,000 vehicles 
produced in, or imported into, the U.S. is consistent with existing 
statutory provisions relating to exemption from fuel economy and safety 
standards.
    COSVAM offered several arguments in support of its requests. First, 
because

[[Page 6593]]

of their limited resources, SVMs do not have the ability to fund 
substantial redesigns of vehicles or their components. In addition, the 
financial burden associated with redesign is exacerbated by the limited 
production of SVMs, whose low volume makes it harder to recoup costs. 
COSVAM also contended that the impact of a phase-in, regardless of the 
percentages involved, is greater on SVMs. This is because such 
manufacturers frequently produce only one or two different models and 
these models are often produced over many model years. As a result, 
lead times are often very long. Design changes and improvements cannot 
be integrated into a new or redesigned model, but must be integrated 
into existing products. As an example, COSVAM provided information 
relating to the Lotus Esprit, whose basic body style has remained 
unchanged for 20 years, and the severe difficulties that the 
manufacturer would face in attempting to bring this design into 
compliance with the head protection requirements. Lotus estimated that 
complying with upper interior impact requirements would require an 
expenditure of  348,000 (approximately $585,197 US 
Dollars), due in large part to the necessity of redesigning the vehicle 
pillars and roof. Based on these costs, and the fact that the company 
was planning to replace the Esprit platform sometime after 2000, Lotus 
indicated that it would not be cost-effective for the company to 
produce an Esprit model that would meet those requirements. Therefore, 
according to COSVAM, if a substantial redesign were required, an SVM 
might have to produce an entirely new model. The low production volume 
of these manufacturers also results in disproportionately high costs. 
These costs, according to COSVAM, not only relate to production, but 
also to development and testing. This results from an SVM's need to 
perform compliance testing with fewer vehicles produced and fewer 
opportunities to distribute such testing costs through increased 
prices.
    COSVAM also stated that in creating a separate phase-in schedule 
for final stage manufacturers, NHTSA recognized that such manufacturers 
have little control over the year of the phase-in in which a particular 
vehicle will be certified as meeting the new requirements. SVMs, in 
COSVAM's view, suffer from similar lack of control over their ability 
to produce vehicles with interiors that will meet Standard 201. COSVAM 
submitted that just as final stage manufacturers have no control over 
when their suppliers will provide them with compliant interiors in 
incomplete vehicles, SVMs have no control over when suppliers of safety 
systems will be willing to meet the needs of the SVM market. This 
problem is particularly acute, according to COSVAM, because safety 
system suppliers will only meet the needs of SVMs after they have 
addressed those of their larger customers.
    The COSVAM petition also indicated that, as evidenced by requests 
for interpretation filed with NHTSA by the Association of International 
Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) and a petition for reconsideration 
filed by the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), a 
number of technical issues relating to compliance with Standard 201 
remained unresolved. According to COSVAM, the existence of these 
unresolved technical issues illustrates the difficulties inherent in 
complying with Standard 201. The petitioner argued that the 
difficulties are more acute for small manufacturers because of their 
limited resources.
    COSVAM also suggested that the requested phase-in would be 
consistent with regulatory reform and recent legislative initiatives 
seeking to ease regulatory burdens on small businesses. COSVAM 
contended that many of its members are small businesses and that the 
requested SVM phase-in would help to minimize regulatory burdens on 
these small businesses.
    Finally, COSVAM indicated that providing a special phase-in for 
SVMs would be consistent with other agency actions. In particular, 
COSVAM cited a recent change in the requirements for compliance with 
Standard 208's seat belt comfort and fit provisions for trucks with a 
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 3,402 and 4,536 kilograms 
(7,500 and 10,000 lbs.). In that instance, NHTSA granted a petition for 
rulemaking to changing a compliance date from September 1, 1997, to 
January 1, 1998, in response to a petition filed by a manufacturer 
indicating that a new product line incorporating the required feature 
would not be in production until January 1, 1998. Based on the 
relatively small impact on safety that would result from a four month 
change in the compliance date, NHTSA granted the petition. COSVAM 
argues that its request for a change in the Standard 201 phase-in 
requirements is similar in that the existing phase-in would impose a 
severe burden on its members and that the safety impact would be 
minimal, due to the low U.S. sales of vehicles manufactured by SVMs.

Agency Analysis

    NHTSA is well aware that compliance with safety standards may 
involve different burdens on manufacturers, depending on their size, 
technical sophistication and resources. The agency acknowledges that 
conforming with and adapting to increased requirements may be more 
difficult for manufacturers that have limited product lines and produce 
a relatively small number of vehicles in any given model year. However, 
the agency believes it has given due consideration to the difficulties 
faced by smaller manufacturers. In promulgating the August 1995 final 
rule, NHTSA created an alternative phase-in schedule for manufacturers 
with few vehicle lines. That phase-in allows these manufacturers to 
delay compliance during the first year of the phase-in, which begins on 
September 1, 1998. Manufacturers selecting this option, however, must 
certify all vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1999 as 
meeting the new requirements. Those manufacturers that chose this 
option had four years of lead time to meet the new requirements. This 
four-year lead time is, in the agency's view, sufficient to meet the 
needs of smaller manufacturers. The agency notes that one purpose of a 
phase-in is to enable vehicle manufacturers the opportunity to decide 
which models to redesign first. As a practical matter, full-line 
manufacturers were required to redesign at least one model to meet the 
new requirements by September 1, 1998. The alternative phase-in 
designed for limited line manufacturers provided a full additional year 
to meet the new requirements.
    In seeking an alternative phase-in, COSVAM contends that such 
schedules would be appropriate because SVMs face the same challenges as 
final stage manufacturers. The agency has given specific consideration 
to final stage manufacturers 2 in Standard 201 and other 
standards for which phase-ins have been employed. In the vast majority 
of cases, final stage manufacturers are provided with an incomplete 
vehicle that has been certified by its manufacturer as meeting 
applicable standards. Moreover, a final stage manufacturer may need to 
use one

[[Page 6594]]

particular model for its purposes. Final stage manufacturers must, 
therefore, rely on incomplete vehicle manufacturers to provide a 
complying product. If this model is one that the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer chooses to redesign last, final stage manufacturers and 
alterers may be forced to reduce or even suspend production and wait 
until the end of a phase-in to obtain a complying incomplete vehicle 
that they can use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The term ``final stage manufacturer'' is defined at 49 CFR 
568.3 as ``a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an 
incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.'' An 
``incomplete vehicle'' is defined in that section as ``an assemblage 
consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power 
train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system * * * 
that requires further manufacturing operations * * * to become a 
completed vehicle.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike final stage manufacturers, who are dependent upon the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers providing them with a particular 
complying incomplete vehicle, single stage SVMs need not wait for 
another manufacturer to produce a particular model that meets Standard 
201. Further, SVMs have greater control over the configuration and 
design of the vehicles they produce. COSVAM's argument implies that 
such control is irrelevant; it submits that its members cannot obtain 
the components or materials needed to bring vehicles into compliance. 
While alleging that its members cannot procure the required materials 
or components, COSVAM has not submitted any evidence indicating that 
this is so.
    One means of compliance is the addition of padding to interior 
surfaces. In developing the August 18, 1995 final rule (60 F.R. 43041) 
adding requirements for upper interior impact protection requirements 
to Standard No. 201, NHTSA performed an analysis of the effect of 
different padding thicknesses on existing passenger cars and LTVs 
(i.e., light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) and determined 
that all of the sampled passenger cars and LTVs could meet the 19 km/h 
(12 mph) impact speed with one-half inch of additional padding on the 
A-pillars, side rails and B-pillars. Since the vehicles examined by the 
agency and designed prior to the August 1995 amendments to Standard 201 
would require additional padding of a half inch or less to provide 
adequate protection in a 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH impact, NHTSA believes 
that the use of additional padding may provide a means for meeting the 
24 km/h (15 mph) impact requirement set forth in the August 1995 final 
rule. The procurement and application of such padding, is not, in 
NHTSA's view, a task which would necessitate the additional lead time 
requested by COSVAM.
    Moreover, there are other means of compliance. Manufacturers may 
choose whatever means they wish to meet the upper interior head 
protection requirements of Standard 201. NHTSA observes that many 
manufacturers are meeting those requirements by applying energy 
absorbing ribs and other structures on the under or rear side of 
plastic trim components. This adaptation of existing designs has 
allowed manufacturers to comply without abandoning basic trim concepts 
and materials that have been in use for many years.
    The petitioner also contends that its member companies would face 
financial hardship in complying with the existing phase-in. While the 
per vehicle cost of any required redesign will be higher for SVMs, many 
of these manufacturers are in a position to pass these costs on to the 
purchasers of these vehicles. At the time of filing the petition at 
issue, COSVAM represented 19 vehicle manufacturers and suppliers. Many 
COSVAM member companies are specialty or luxury car manufacturers such 
as AM General, Rolls-Royce, Maserati, Lamborghini, Ferrari, and Aston 
Martin. While it is true that many of these manufacturers sell a small 
number of cars in the United States each year, many of these vehicles 
are quite sophisticated, particularly those in the high performance 
market segment. Given the existing prices of these vehicles, which 
indicates that their target markets are not particularly price 
sensitive, NHTSA believes that additional costs associated with 
compliance may be addressed by price increases.
    Several luxury and higher priced performance cars have been, or 
will soon be, equipped with advanced dynamic head protection systems 
such as side air bags to cover the A/B-pillars and front side rails. It 
is anticipated that a number of large automobile manufacturers, 
especially several European companies, will introduce advanced dynamic 
systems to certain vehicle models. It appears that some advanced 
dynamic systems are already available, well before the deadline of one 
of the optional phase-in schedules already available to single stage 
SVMs--September 1, 1999. NHTSA believes, and COSVAM has not submitted 
any evidence to the contrary, that single stage manufacturing SVMs 
could have adopted one of the advanced dynamic systems being shown by 
suppliers of large vehicle manufacturers.
    COSVAM sought to invoke as precedent a prior instance in which a 
manufacturer successfully petitioned the agency to amend the phase-in 
requirements for Standard 208 for a certain class of trucks. In that 
particular case, the petitioner alleged that it would be introducing a 
new model designed to meet new safety belt comfort and fit requirements 
on January 1, instead of September 1 of the preceding year. In its 
analysis of that earlier petition, NHTSA noted that the class of 
vehicle involved, trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 to 
10,000 pounds, was less likely to be driven or used by occupants who 
would benefit from improvements in safety belt comfort and fit. In 
changing the phase-in requirements for this class of vehicle, the 
agency's action resulted in a four month delay in the implementation of 
the comfort and fit requirements. In that case, both the delay and the 
safety consequences of that delay were minimal. The vehicles involved 
were still required to have safety belts that provided the same degree 
of protection in a frontal impact as belts used in other vehicles. Any 
reduction in safety was limited solely to the number of occupants who 
may have been deterred from using safety belts because they were in a 
vehicle produced during that four month period which did not meet the 
comfort and fit requirements.
    In contrast, one alternative compliance schedule sought by COSVAM 
would exclude all SVMs from any requirement to produce vehicles 
complying with the upper interior head impact protection requirements 
of Standard 201 until September 1, 2004. Under that suggested 
compliance schedule, single stage SVMs would not be required to meet 
the upper interior head protection requirements until nine years after 
promulgation of the final rule and six years after any other 
manufacturers, except final stage manufacturers, began producing 
conforming vehicles. This additional length of time presents an 
additional risk to safety, particularly in light of the fact that, 
unlike the comfort and fit requirements which mandated refinement of an 
existing safety measure, the upper interior head impact protection 
requirements require manufacturers to introduce completely new safety 
features.
    Another alternative compliance schedule suggested by COSVAM would 
also have a more significant impact on safety than the modification of 
the comfort and fit compliance schedule it cites in support of its 
petition. In one proposal offered by COSVAM, existing phase-in schedule 
#3, found at S6.1.3 of Standard 201, would be modified to provide all 
manufacturers with an additional year during which they would not have 
to produce vehicles meeting the requirements. Phase-in #3 currently 
provides that manufacturers do not have to produce any vehicles meeting 
the requirements during the period from September 1, 1998 to August 31, 
1999, provided that all vehicles produced on or after September

[[Page 6595]]

1, 1999 comply. The COSVAM petition requests that NHTSA modify this 
schedule so that manufacturers need not produce vehicles meeting the 
requirements during the period from September 1, 1998 to August 31, 
2000, provided that all production after September 1, 2000 complies. 
The agency observes that COSVAM's proposed extension of the compliance 
schedule under Phase-in #3 by one year, thereby delaying implementation 
of measures to reduce head injuries in crashes, would have a 
significant impact on safety.
    COSVAM's December 1997 submission also requested that the agency 
add a new phase-in schedule to Standard 201. This new phase-in would 
specify that five percent of a manufacturer's production for the time 
period between September 1, 1998 and August 31, 1999 must comply with 
the upper interior head impact requirements, 15 percent of production 
between September 1, 1999 and August 31, 2000 must comply, 50 percent 
of production between September 1, 2000 and August 31, 2001 must 
comply, 70 percent of production between September 1, 2001 and August 
31, 2002 must comply, and all production after September 1, 2002 must 
comply.
    NHTSA notes that this suggested phase-in schedule seems ill suited 
to provide COSVAM with the relief that it argues that its members must 
have. COSVAM's principal arguments are that SVMs face difficulties in 
redesigning vehicles, lack flexibility because they have limited 
numbers of vehicle lines and are unable to procure materials and 
technology needed for compliance because suppliers will meet the needs 
of larger manufacturers first, before attending to small manufacturers. 
The alternative offered here differs from existing phase-in schedules 
#1 and #2 by requiring that smaller percentages of production comply in 
the first two years with a larger percentage complying in the third 
year. In the fourth year and beyond, the proposed phase-in is identical 
to existing alternatives #1 and #2. Such a phase-in, while offering 
relaxed requirements for the first two years, seems ill suited to 
accommodate manufacturers that allegedly cannot obtain the parts or 
technology required for compliance at the same time that larger 
manufacturers can. It is also not clear how such a schedule would 
better meet the needs of producers with few vehicle lines than the 
existing schedules do. The most specific information supplied by the 
petitioner, relating to the Lotus Esprit, indicates that the 
alternative suggested in this instance would offer no relief 
whatsoever. COSVAM has not offered any data or arguments directly or 
indirectly supporting this particular option. It is therefore difficult 
for the agency to consider it, particularly when the relaxed 
requirements would entail additional safety risks in the first two 
years and an overall net loss in safety.
    In support of the phase-in alternatives suggested in its petition, 
COSVAM also argued that the existence of certain testing and compliance 
questions, evidenced by inquiries by the AAMA and AIAM, illustrate the 
technical difficulties involved in complying with the upper interior 
head protection requirements. According to COSVAM, problems posed by 
these issues, and similar technical questions, place a disproportionate 
burden on small manufacturers because of their limited resources. NHTSA 
begins by noting that it is not uncommon for new FMVSS requirements to 
produce technical questions. While the agency notes that the upper 
interior head impact requirements have produced, and will undoubtedly 
continue to produce, technical questions relating to testing and 
compliance that must be resolved by manufacturers or the agency, NHTSA 
notes that some of the issues have already been resolved. Further, the 
questions raised by those groups, and others, have generally related to 
interpretation of the upper interior head impact requirements and the 
associated test procedures. These issue are, in NHTSA's view, not 
issues that a larger manufacturer can more readily resolve than a small 
one could.
    NHTSA also observes that if an SVM encounters special difficulties 
in developing and/or adopting a safety countermeasure, it may choose to 
file a petition for exemption in accordance with the criteria and 
procedures outlined in Part 555--Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards. NHTSA is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30113 to exempt, on 
a temporary basis, a manufacturer whose total yearly production does 
not exceed 10,000 motor vehicles, from any FMVSS that would cause the 
manufacturer substantial economic hardship should it be required to 
meet it immediately. The application procedures for such an exemption 
are contained in 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(a). The applicant must not only 
show hardship, but also that it has tried in good faith to meet the 
standard from which it requests relief.
    If, as COSVAM asserts, compliance with Standard 201 would create 
substantial financial hardship for its member companies, those 
companies would have the option of applying for an exemption. NHTSA 
also notes that if an SVM is unable to procure safety equipment from 
suppliers, as COSVAM alleged its members will, because such suppliers 
give priority to addressing the needs of larger customers, the efforts 
of a manufacturer to secure this safety equipment may well be 
considered as evidence of a good faith effort to meet a standard from 
which the manufacturer seeks exemption.

Conclusion

    In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's 
review of the petition. The agency has concluded both that there is no 
reasonable possibility that the actions requested by the petitioner 
would be taken at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding and that 
the concerns alleged by COSVAM do not warrant the expenditure of agency 
resources to conduct a rulemaking proceeding. Accordingly, NHTSA denies 
COSVAM's petition.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued: February 5, 1999.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-3294 Filed 2-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P