[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 19, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27203-27206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12628]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 99-5682]
RIN 2127-AG48


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assemblies

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is deleting the provision in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt 
Assemblies, requiring that the lap belt portion of a safety belt system 
be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions. NHTSA has 
concluded retention of this requirement is unnecessary since provisions 
in Standard No. 209, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and 
Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, together require 
pelvic restraint. Further, those requirements are more readily 
enforceable than the requirement being deleted from Standard No. 209. 
Today's rule responds to a petition for rulemaking from the Association 
of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM). It is also consistent 
with the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, which directed 
Federal agencies to identify and eliminate unnecessary Federal 
Regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 19, 1999. Petitions for 
Reconsideration must be received by July 6, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Petitions should refer to the docket and notice number of 
this notice and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For non-legal issues: Mr. John Lee, Office of Crashworthiness 
Standards, NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-2264, 
facsimile (202) 366-4329, electronic mail [email protected].

For legal issues: Ms. Nicole H. Fradette, NCC-20, Rulemaking Division, 
Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, telephone 
(202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail 
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt 
Assemblies, specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies, including 
the pelvic restraint (i.e., lap belt) and the upper torso restraint 
(i.e. shoulder belt). Other requirements address the release mechanism, 
the attachment hardware, the adjustment, the webbing, the strap, and 
marking and other informational instructions. NHTSA adopted Standard 
No. 209 in 1967 as one of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards (32 FR 2408, February 3, 1967).1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Standard No. 209 was adopted from a Department of Commerce 
standard (32 FR 2408, February 3, 1967), which was adopted from a 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard. (29 FR 16973, 
December 11, 1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S4.1(b) Pelvic restraint of Standard No. 209 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.

Although the brief preamble of the notice establishing the standard and 
paragraph S4.1(b) in 1967 did not discuss the purpose of that 
paragraph, NHTSA regards the purpose of S4.1 (b) to be the reduction of 
the likelihood of restrained occupants sliding forward and under a 
fastened safety belt during a crash (referred to as submarining). It is 
important that the lap belt remains on the pelvis so that the crash 
forces transferred by a lap belt are imposed on the strong, bony pelvis 
instead of the more vulnerable abdominal region.

II. NHTSA Response and Proposal

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on July 7, 1997 
(62 FR 36251) 2 NHTSA proposed to delete S4.1(b). NHTSA 
tentatively concluded that S4.1(b) was unclear and should either be 
clarified or deleted. The agency explained that it was unclear how it 
would determine that a lap belt complied with the Standard and was in 
fact ``designed'' to remain on the pelvis. NHTSA raised the issue of 
whether a

[[Page 27204]]

lap belt's failure to remain on the pelvis during a crash could be 
sufficient to establish that the belt was not ``designed'' to remain on 
the pelvis under all conditions. In addition, NHTSA noted that the 
meaning of the words, ``remain on the pelvis,'' was unclear. The agency 
also stated its belief that Standard No. 208, other provisions in 
Standard No. 209, and Standard No. 210 contained more specific 
requirements that collectively have the effect of requiring pelvic 
restraint and thereby reducing the likelihood of occupants submarining 
during a crash. NHTSA tentatively concluded the requirement appeared to 
be unnecessary and unenforceable and was an appropriate candidate for 
deletion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The NPRM was issued in response to a May 24, 1996 petition 
for rulemaking from the Association of International Automobile 
Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM). AIAM petitioned NHTSA to delete S4.1(b) 
of Standard No. 209. 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 that affect pelvic restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Response to the NPRM

    NHTSA received nine comments in response to the NPRM. General 
Motors Corporation (GM), Mercedes Benz, Automotive Occupant Restraint 
Council (AORC), Association of International Automobile Manufacturers 
(AIAM), Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler), Ford Motor Company (Ford), and 
Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VW) all favored the agency's proposal to 
delete S4.1(b) from Standard 209. Advocates for Highway Safety 
(Advocates) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) opposed 
it.
    General Motors stated that it is unclear how compliance with S4.1 
(b) is to be evaluated as no test has ever been conceived for this 
purpose. GM also stated that Standards No. 208, 209 and 210 provide 
adequate and more readily enforceable requirements for pelvic 
restraint. Mercedes Benz stated that its crash data demonstrate that 
other requirements in Standards No. 209 and 210 cause the lap belt to 
be designed to remain on the pelvis in real world crashes and thus 
reduce the likelihood of occupant submarining. AORC argued that S4.1 
(b) is redundant and has little effect in comparison to other more 
specific and more stringent requirements in Standards No. 210, 208 and 
209. AIAM also argued that there is no need for S4.1(b) in light of 
other provisions in other standards. Chrysler stated that deleting 
S4.1(b) would not adversely affect safety. Ford argued that S4.1(b) is 
not stated in objective terms and, as GM did, stated that there was no 
means to measure performance under that paragraph. Ford suggested that 
NHTSA cooperate with Transport Canada in developing a computer model 
for belt fit evaluation or harmonization. Volkswagen also stated that 
S4.1 (b) is redundant, unclear and lacks objectivity.
    Advocates opposed deleting S4.1(b) from Standard 209. Advocates 
stated that it did not believe that the pelvic restraint requirement is 
unclear or that other provisions in the safety standards render S4.1(b) 
redundant. Advocates argued that rather than deleting the provision, 
NHTSA should clarify it by deleting the words ``be designed to'' from 
S4.1(b). The NTSB expressed concern that deleting S4.1(b) would 
adversely affect safety by deleting, what it believed to be, the only 
performance standard for seat belt restraint systems covering occupants 
other than 50th percentile adult males. NTSB argued that S4.1(b) should 
be retained until a more effective performance standard is in place to 
protect a larger segment of the traveling public.

IV. Agency Decision and Response to Comments

    NHTSA adopted Standard No. 209 in 1967 along with several other 
standards as part of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards. As stated earlier in this notice, NHTSA regards S4.1(b) of 
the standard as being intended to reduce the risk of occupant 
submarining by requiring that the lap belt remains on the pelvis during 
a crash.
    NHTSA has concluded that S4.1(b) is unnecessary because 
subsequently adopted provisions in Standard No. 208 and Standard No. 
210, and other provisions in Standard No. 209, contain more specific 
requirements that collectively achieve the same objective for a broad 
category of vehicle occupants. These provisions regulate the primary 
aspects of lap belt design and performance that affect the likelihood 
of occupant submarining. Specifically, they regulate belt angle, 
adjustment, fit, and the amount of slack in the belt.
    Standards No. 208 and 209 address seat belt fit and adjustment by 
requiring seat belts to fit a wide range of vehicle occupants. In 1971, 
NHTSA amended the fitting provisions in Standard No. 208 to specify 
that the lap belt portion of the safety belt must fit persons from a 
six-year-old child to a 95th percentile adult male.3 NHTSA 
also amended Standard No. 209 in 1971 to specify that lap and shoulder 
belts must be capable of fitting persons from a fifth percentile adult 
female to a 95th percentile adult male.4 NTSB is, therefore, 
incorrect when it states that S4.1(b) is the only requirement for seat 
belt restraint systems covering occupants other than 50th percentile 
adult males. Both Standard No. 208 and Standard No. 209 require seat 
belt restraint systems to fit occupants other than 50th percentile 
adult males.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ S7.1 of Standard No. 208 states:
    ``Adjustment. S7.1.1 Except as specified in S7.1.1.1 and S 
7.1.1.2, the lap belt of any seat belt assembly furnished in 
accordance with S4.1.2 shall adjust by means of any emergency-
locking retractor or automatic locking retractor that conforms to 
Sec. 571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 
50th percentile 6-year-old to those of a 95th percentile adult male 
. . .''
    \4\ S4.1 of Standard No. 209 states:
    ``(g) Adjustment. (1) A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly 
shall be capable of adjustment to fit occupants whose dimensions and 
weight range from those of 5th percentile adult female to those of 
95th-percentile adult male.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to improve belt performance and reduce the potential of 
submarining, NHTSA amended S4.3.1 of Standard No. 210 in 1990 to 
increase the minimum lap belt angle from 20 degrees to 30 degrees. (55 
FR 17970, April 30, 1990) As amended, S4.3.1 requires that the lap belt 
angle, measured from the seating reference point to either the 
anchorage or the point where the safety belt contacts the seat frame, 
must be between 30 and 75 degrees. NHTSA amended the requirement after 
agency research using test dummies demonstrated that increasing the 
angle of the lap belt reduced the potential for occupant 
submarining.5 The possibility of submarining increases as 
the line of the lap belt approaches the horizontal (i.e., as the belt 
angle decreases). Too shallow a belt angle results in insufficient 
downward force to resist the upward motion of the lap belt that occurs 
in a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Rear Seat Submarining Investigation,'' DOT HS 807-347, May 
1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The potential for occupant submarining is also affected by the 
amount of slack in a lap belt. An occupant is at a greater risk of 
submarining if a lap belt fits loosely around the occupant. The 
potential for occupant submarining, therefore, rises as the amount of 
slack in the belt increases. To help prevent belt webbing from playing 
out in a crash, NHTSA amended Standard No. 209 in 1971 to require that 
an emergency-locking retractor lock before the webbing extends one inch 
when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7g.6 
This provision lowers the risk of occupant submarining by controlling

[[Page 27205]]

the amount of slack that may be introduced into the belt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ S4.3 (j) of Standard No. 209 states:
    ``(j) Emergency-locking retractor. An emergency-locking 
retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in 
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)--
    (1) Shall lock before the webbing extends 1 inch when the 
retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7g.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has concluded that the comfort and fit provisions in 
Standards No. 208 and 209, together with the lap belt angle in Standard 
No. 210, and the emergency-locking retractor provisions in Standard No. 
209 provide assurance that the lap belt limits the likelihood of 
occupant submarining. NHTSA believes that these provisions collectively 
provide the necessary specifications to assure pelvic restraint and 
that retention of S4.1(b) is therefore unnecessary.
    Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform 
to NHTSA's safety standards before they can be offered for sale. 
Compliance with the safety standards is required up to the first sale 
for purposes other than resale. NHTSA conducts vehicle testing of new 
vehicles to determine a manufacturer's compliance with the safety 
standards. Manufacturers must exercise due care to assure that any 
vehicle or equipment item will comply with the safety standards when 
tested by NHTSA. Manufacturers must know how NHTSA plans to test 
compliance with a particular standard if they are to ensure that their 
vehicles comply.
    Since NHTSA does not have a test procedure to determine a 
manufacturer's compliance with S4.1(b), the provision is not readily 
enforceable. Further, NHTSA does not agree with Advocates that a 
repeatable, practicable test could be devised to determine compliance 
with the provision. The provision makes no specific reference to a 
particular test speed or type of collision. Even if it were feasible to 
develop dynamic tests that incorporated all crash conditions, for 
example, from a 90 mph head-on collision to a 20 mph rollover, NHTSA 
does not believe that such a requirement would be practicable. More 
importantly, in light of the provisions cited above in Standard Nos. 
208, 209, and 210 that collectively provide the necessary 
specifications to assure effective pelvic restraint, NHTSA does not 
believe that developing a test procedure for S4.1(b) would yield 
benefits.
    Although the comments addressed the first sentence of S4.1(b), the 
NPRM also proposed to delete the entire subsection, including the 
requirement in the second sentence for the pelvic restraint portion of 
a Type 2 seat belt assembly that can be used without the upper torso 
restraint. This type of seat belt assembly is no longer permitted; 
therefore, the requirement is no longer necessary and is being 
rescinded.
    In summary, NHTSA concludes that Standard No. 208, other provisions 
in Standard No. 209, and Standard No. 210 contain more specific 
requirements than S4.1(b) that collectively promote pelvic restraint 
and reduce the likelihood of occupants submarining during a crash. 
Further, these provisions all have established test procedures to 
determine compliance and are readily enforceable. NHTSA concludes that 
S4.1(b) is unnecessary and unenforceable and should be deleted. This 
amendment will not adversely affect safety and is consistent with the 
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.

V. 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 are no apparent cost savings 
or added costs. Deletion of this section is not expected to result in 
any changes to seat belt system design or in any change in the amount 
of testing by manufacturers. There are no apparent benefits (other than 
the deletion of a requirement that does not add to safety) or any 
negative results. Deletion of this section will not result in any 
design or performance changes for motor vehicle restraints.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I hereby certify 
that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for 
the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The final rule primarily affects 
passenger car, light truck, and multipurpose passenger vehicle 
manufacturers. The Small Business Administration's size standards (13 
CFR part 121) are organized according to Standard Industrial 
Classification Codes (SIC). SIC Code 3711 ``Motor Vehicles and 
Passenger Car Bodies'' has a small business size standard of 1,000 
employees or fewer.
    This final rule applies to the previously described vehicle 
manufacturers regardless of size. This final rule does not require and 
will not result in any vehicle design changes. This final rule deletes 
certain requirements and does not require any changes to the seat belt 
system. The changes will not affect the cost of new vehicles.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and determined that it will not impose any 
information collection requirements as that term is defined by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320.

The National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has also analyzed this rule under the National Environmental 
Policy Act and determined that it will have no significant impact on 
the human environment.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) 
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million annually. However, the incremental manufacturer costs 
for this final rule are estimated to be zero.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    The agency has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles 
and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has determined 
that this rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule does not have any retroactive effect. NHTSA is not aware 
of any state law that is preempted by this rule. This rule does not 
repeal any existing Federal law or regulation. It modifies existing law 
only to the extent that it deletes the requirement which specifies that 
the lap belt portion of a safety belt system be designed to remain on 
the pelvis under all conditions. This rule does not require submission 
of a petition for reconsideration or the initiation of other 
administrative proceedings before a party 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:

[[Page 27206]]

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 and reserving S4.1(b).

    Issued on: May 14, 1999.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-12628 Filed 5-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P