[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70904-70919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26874]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571, 585, 586, 589, 590, 596, and 597

[Docket No. NHTSA-04-18726]
RIN 2127-AI91


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts NHTSA's proposal to require all 
designated seating positions in rear seats, other than side-facing 
seats, be equipped with Type 2 integral lap/shoulder safety belts. 
Side-facing seats may be equipped with either a Type 1 lap belt or a 
Type 2 belt. This final rule responds to a Congressional mandate that 
the agency begin to phase-in requirements for lap/shoulder belts for 
all rear seating positions, wherever practicable, not later than 
September 1, 2005.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective 
September 1, 2005. Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be 
received by January 24, 2005.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call 
Sanjay Patel, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at 202-366-4583.
    For legal issues, you may call Christopher Calamita, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, at 202-366-2992.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 
Washington, DC, 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of the Proposed Requirements
III. Summary of Public Comments
IV. Summary of the Final Rule
V. Requirements of the Final Rule
    A. General Requirements
    B. Allowance for Detachable Type 2 Belts
    1. Removable Seats
    2. Folding Seats
    3. Seats Located Adjacent to An Aisle
    4. Bus Seats
    5. Swivel seats
VI. Phase-In of the New Requirements
VII. Other Issues
VIII. Costs and Benefits Associated With the Final Rule
IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    On December 4, 2002, the President signed into law ``Anton's Law'', 
Public Law 107-318 (December 4, 2002; 116 Stat. 2772), which provides 
for the improvement of child safety devices when installed in motor 
vehicles. One of the provisions of Anton's Law mandates the 
installation of lap/shoulder belts in rear seating positions. 
Specifically, section 5(a) of the law directs the Secretary of 
Transportation, through NHTSA, to issue a final rule by December 2004 
that would:

require a lap and shoulder belt assembly for each rear designated 
seating position in a passenger motor vehicle with a gross vehicle 
weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except that if the Secretary 
determines that installation of a lap and shoulder belt assembly is 
not practicable for a particular designated seating position in a 
particular type of passenger motor vehicle, the Secretary may 
exclude the designated seating position from the requirement.

    Section 5(b) of the statute further specifies that the final rule 
be implemented in phases on a production year basis, beginning with the 
first production year after the year the final rule is published.\1\ 
The rule is to be

[[Page 70905]]

effective for all vehicles by the third production year of the phase-
in. Thus, according to the schedule mandated by Anton's Law, the phase-
in would commence on September 1, 2005, and all vehicles would have to 
meet the requirements of the final rule by September 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``The requirement prescribed under subsection (a)(1) shall 
be implemented in phases on a production year basis beginning with 
the production year that begins not later than 12 months after the 
end of the year in which the regulations are prescribed under 
subsection (a). The final rule shall apply to all passenger motor 
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less 
that are manufactured in the third production year of the 
implementation phase-in under the schedule.''1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to 
implement section 5 on August 6, 2003 (68 FR 46546) [Docket No. NHTSA-
03-15817; Notice 1]. A detailed history of the agency's rulemaking 
activities related to the regulation of safety belts in the rear seat 
of vehicles is provided in that document.
    One of the primary reasons for today's rule is the increased 
protection that children between the ages of four and eight gain by 
having a lap/shoulder belt made available in rear inboard seating 
positions. When these Type 2 belts are installed in the rear inboard 
seating position, there is an additional, and potentially safer, 
seating position available for a child in a belt-positioning booster 
seat. Approximately 77% of the passenger car fleet and 49% of the light 
truck and van (LTV) fleet \2\ currently on the road already have Type 2 
belts in the rear inboard seating position. Belt positioning booster 
seats should enable children to attain the same effectiveness rates 
from lap/shoulder belts as the rest of the population, since they allow 
proper positioning for children in the four-to eight-year-old age 
group. Additionally, the presence of an inboard lap/shoulder belt may 
shift seat usage from the outboard positions to inboard seat positions. 
This would lead to some reduction of injury or death in side impact 
crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A LTV is a vehicle other than a trailer or passenger car 
designed to carry ten or fewer people. LTVs consist of light trucks, 
vans and sport utility vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The potential benefits associated with requiring lap/shoulder belts 
for rear inboard seating positions are not limited to the potential for 
increased use of booster seats. It would also benefit older occupants. 
Current belt use among rear inboard-seated passengers in passenger cars 
is approximately 50 percent, while the belt use among rear inboard-
seated passengers in LTVs is slightly higher at 57 percent. In a 1999 
study, NHTSA found that belt use was approximately seven to ten percent 
higher at rear outboard designated seating positions with a lap/
shoulder belt than at ones with only a lap belt.\3\ We are unsure why 
the presence of a Type 2 belt is associated with this increased level 
of safety belt use. Whatever the reason, the combination of higher belt 
use and increased benefits related to the additional protection 
afforded by the shoulder belt results in greater benefits than lap 
belts alone. This is true for every forward-facing seating position. 
Thus, the increase in belt use attributable to the presence of a Type 2 
belt in the rear inboard seating positions introduces the potential to 
reduce the risk of serious injury or death for occupants seated in this 
position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Effectiveness of Lap/Shoulder Belts in the Back Outboard 
Seating Positions,'' Evaluation Division, Plans and Policy, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. June 1999. 
DOT HS 808 945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the switch from lap belts to lap/shoulder belts in rear inboard 
seating positions did not lead to any increase in belt use, NHTSA 
estimates that the addition of a shoulder belt to the rear inboard 
seating positions of passenger cars would prevent 5 fatalities and 111 
injuries (AIS 2-5) annually. Similar numbers, 5 fatalities and 134 
injuries (AIS 2-5) would be achieved in requiring lap/shoulder belts in 
the rear inboard seats of LTVs. These reductions in injuries and 
fatalities are purely the result of the added protection offered by the 
shoulder belt.
    As noted above, the agency has observed a seven to ten percent 
increase in belt usage for seating positions equipped with a lap/
shoulder belt rather than just a lap belt. Assuming that the switch to 
lap/shoulder belts leads to a ten percent increase in belt use, the 
agency would expect to see the benefits increase to 16 fewer 
fatalities, 77 fewer AIS 1 injuries, and 202 fewer AIS 2-5 injuries in 
passenger cars equipped with rear inboard lap/shoulder belts. Likewise, 
it would expect to see the benefits increase to 17 fewer fatalities, 60 
fewer AIS 1 injuries, and 293 fewer AIS 2-5 injuries in LTVs equipped 
with rear lap/shoulder belts. Most of the reduction in injuries would 
be in the AIS 2 range. These are injuries that, while not life-
threatening, can result in significant financial costs and long-term 
pain and suffering.
    As discussed in the NPRM, this rulemaking seeks to increase the use 
of belt-positioning booster seats and to improve the safety of all 
occupants in the inboard rear seating position, regardless of whether 
the occupant is seated in a booster seat. We believe that today's rule 
will provide occupants seated in the rear inboard seat position with 
the same level of safety belt protection as the occupants of other 
seating positions.

II. Summary of the Proposed Requirements

    In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed adopting a requirement for lap/shoulder 
belts for all designated seating positions other than the inboard front 
seat for all passenger cars and for most other vehicles with a GVWR of 
4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less and side-facing seats. Side-facing seats 
that are designated seating positions were proposed to be equipped with 
a lap belt only. Inboard seating positions in the front seat would not 
have been required to have a Type 2 belt because the projected 
benefits, when compared to the cost involved in requiring lap/shoulder 
belts for this seating position, are so low.
    In proposing to require lap/shoulder belts for rear seats, NHTSA 
tentatively decided to retain some vehicle exceptions to the current 
rear lap/shoulder provisions contained in FMVSS No. 208. Specifically, 
rear designated seats in motor homes, walk-in van-type trucks, and 
vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. postal service 
would be excluded from the rear lap/shoulder belt requirements. The 
rear seats in LTVs carrying chassis-mount campers with a GVWR greater 
than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) and no greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) would 
need to be equipped with a lap belt only.
    We also tentatively decided to require Type 2 belts for rear-facing 
seats and for forward-facing outboard seats adjacent to an aisle. FMVSS 
No. 208 currently allows a rear forward-facing outboard seat to be 
equipped with only a lap belt if that seat is adjacent to an aisle that 
runs between the seat and the side of the vehicle and is used to gain 
access to seats rearward of the seat. This exclusion was added to the 
standard because of the potential ingress/egress problems created by 
shoulder belts for those more rearward seats and because attaching belt 
anchorages to the side of the vehicle could cause a lap/shoulder belt 
to fit its user poorly. With the advent of safety belt technologies 
like lap/shoulder belts that are integrated into the seat back and 
ceiling-mounted anchors, we queried whether such an exception was still 
needed.
    In the NPRM, the agency stated that it was not planning on changing 
the lap/shoulder belt requirements for swivel seats or readily 
removable seats. Both of these types of seats may have modified lap/
shoulder belt assemblies. We noted, however, that such an exception may 
no longer be needed because of new safety belt designs. As discussed 
more fully later in this document, we have decided to make some changes 
to these requirements based, in part, upon industry responses to our 
request in the NPRM for comments on the continuing need for such 
exceptions.

[[Page 70906]]

    While not proposing any changes to the current FMVSS No. 208 
comfort and convenience requirements and the various barrier tests 
contained in FMVSS No. 208, we sought comment on whether rear seat 
requirements should be considered. Since the benefits associated with 
lap/shoulder belts can only be realized if they are used correctly, the 
agency queried whether it was appropriate to consider requiring 
adjustable upper anchorages.
    NHTSA anticipated that the addition of a shoulder belt to the rear 
inboard seating positions in passenger cars and LTVs would prevent 
between 10 to 33 fatalities and 245 to 632 injuries (AIS 1-5) per year. 
If all inboard seating positions were equipped with lap/shoulder belts, 
we estimated that 15 to 49 fatalities and 260 to 804 injuries (AIS 1-5) 
could be prevented per year in passenger cars and LTVs annually.
    In the NPRM, we estimated that approximately 23% of passenger cars 
and 57.5% of LTVs would need to be equipped with an additional shoulder 
belt if the final rule were adopted as proposed. Additionally, if NHTSA 
were to require an inboard lap/shoulder belt for light trucks with only 
one row of seats, approximately 11 percent (966,128) of the LTV fleet 
would need to be equipped with an additional lap/shoulder belt.
    NHTSA estimated that the net cost of installing the shoulder belt 
portion of a lap/shoulder belt in the inboard rear seat of a passenger 
car or LTV would average $15.41. The total net cost associated with 
replacing lap belts with lap/shoulder belts at rear inboard seating 
positions was anticipated to be approximately $109 million.
    For the purpose of estimating costs, NHTSA assumed that most 
manufacturers would choose to install lap/shoulder belts that are 
integrated into the seat back if there were no place to install an 
upper shoulder belt anchorage along the existing vehicle structure. We 
estimated the cost of reinforcing the seat back of these seats to be 
approximately $31.08 per seating position, for a total estimated cost 
of approximately $109 million.
    We anticipated the total cost of the rule would be $218.8 million.

III. Summary of Public Comments

    Thirteen comments were submitted in response to the NPRM.\4\ Ford 
Motor Company (Ford), General Motors (GM) and the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) generally supported the NPRM, but 
provided insight on the cost and feasibility of lap/shoulder belts 
integrated into vehicle seat backs, a technology for which the agency 
specifically requested information. The Recreation Vehicle Industry 
Association (RVIA) requested that conversion vans be exempted from 
compliance during the phase-in or that a one year extension of the 
phase-in period be added. Flexsteel Industries, a seat manufacturer for 
the conversion van industry, requested that the agency adopt an 
exception for folding sofa-style seats akin to that currently provided 
for swivel seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Two of the comments related to a misunderstanding caused by 
a typographical error in the notice incorrectly implying that the 
proposal addressed lap/shoulder belts in small school buses. That 
error was acknowledged by NHTSA in a letter to Michael Martin of the 
School Bus Information Council dated February 9, 2004, and NHTSA 
reiterates here that safety belts on school buses are not affected 
by today's rule. A third comment, by Honda, addressed a housekeeping 
matter in the NPRM that was intended to have no substantive change. 
Specifically, in the NPRM, the agency proposed placing all phase-in 
reporting requirements in a single part of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR). Currently, each FMVSS with a phase-in requirement 
has a corollary part in the CFR specifying the content and form of 
required phase-in compliance reports. Honda noted minor errors in 
the proposed regulatory text that are hereby corrected. No further 
discussion of these three comments is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), Syson-Hille and 
Associates (Syson-Hille), SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A., and Bidez and 
Associates generally supported the proposal, but argued that the agency 
had not sufficiently addressed the safety of children in the rear seat 
in its notice. The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) 
supported the proposed rule, and urged the agency to adopt a lap/
shoulder belt for the front inboard seating position in single row 
vehicles (i.e., pick-up trucks). NADA also requested that the agency 
discuss in the preamble to this rule whether retrofit kits and LATCH 
anchorages would be promoted or considered in future rulemakings. Since 
this rulemaking does not address LATCH anchorages, this comment will 
not be discussed further.

IV. Summary of the Final Rule

    Today's rule requires Type 2 belts in rear seating positions 
largely as proposed in the NPRM. However, we have decided to narrow the 
existing exceptions for removable and swivel seats and for the seating 
positions located adjacent to an aisle. Based on a survey of the 
current fleet and submissions by commenters, we believe the exceptions 
currently in effect are neither needed nor in the best interests of 
safety. Additionally, we have decided to provide a limited exception 
for folding seats, a seat design that has become increasingly popular 
in LTVs and has long been used in station wagons and hatch-backs.
    We have decided against requiring Type 2 belts for front inboard 
seats because the cost associated with such a requirement cannot be 
justified by the exceptionally low likelihood of occupancy. 
Manufacturers are welcome to install Type 2 belts at this position 
voluntarily. Likewise, manufacturers may install Type 2 belts at side-
facing seating positions, although only lap belts are required.
    We are not granting RVIA's request that manufacturers of conversion 
vans be provided with an additional year for compliance with today's 
requirement because the time period for compliance is dictated by 
statute. Even if this were not the case, the agency believes its 
accommodation of removable seats is sufficient to address RVIA's 
concerns.
    Finally, as noted earlier, we are placing all phase-in reporting 
requirements in 49 CFR Part 585, including the new requirements 
currently located in Part 586 and 597. These two regulations were not 
in effect when the NPRM was published. A new subpart detailing the 
phase-in reporting requirements for FMVSS No. 138, Tire pressure 
monitoring systems (TPMS) will be added to Part 585 as part of the TPMS 
final rule.

V. Requirements of the Final Rule

A. General Requirements

    Today's rule requires all rear designated seating positions in 
motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, other than 
side-facing seats, be equipped with a Type 2 belt. The rule applies to 
both forward-facing and rear-facing seats. For rear-facing seats, a 
Type 2 belt is unlikely to provide substantially greater benefits than 
a lap belt in a frontal crash. However, Type 2 belts should reduce the 
risk of injury in a rear crash and will provide a distinct benefit in 
all crash modes if actually worn. Since data indicate an increased 
likelihood that an occupant will wear a Type 2 belt when he or she 
would not wear a lap belt, this potential for increased usage should 
not be discounted.
    Very few manufacturers produce vehicles with rear-facing seats. 
However, Ford stated in its comment that both the rear-facing seats in 
the Volvo station wagon and the Taurus/Sable station wagon are already 
equipped with lap/shoulder belts at the outboard seating position. 
These seats, the only rear-facing seats in Ford's fleet of vehicles, do 
not have an inboard

[[Page 70907]]

seating position. The upper shoulder belt anchorages for these seats 
are attached to the C-pillar, as are the upper anchorages for the 
forward-facing seats immediately forward of the rear-facing seats. 
Other manufacturers installing rear-facing seats should be able to use 
the same upper anchorage design philosophy as Ford. Ford noted in its 
comment that the addition of an inboard seating position would require 
vehicle redesign, most likely in the form of a belt integrated into the 
seat. To the extent a rear-seat falls within one of the limited 
exceptions detailed below, that exception is available to the rear-
facing seat. Since rear-facing seats typically fold down to create 
cargo space, a detachable Type 2 belt would likely be permitted for the 
inboard seating position.
    We have decided against extending today's requirements to side-
facing seats because we believe the addition of a shoulder belt at this 
seat position is of limited value, given the paucity of data related to 
side-facing seats. Aside from two anecdotal cases reported from Syson-
Hille in its comment on the NPRM, we are unaware of any reported 
injuries to belted occupants seated in a side-facing seat. In both of 
the instances cited by Syson-Hille, the seat was equipped with a lap 
belt only. Further, requiring Type 2 belts at side-facing seats may not 
be practicable given that the shoulder belt may not provide restraint 
in frontal and rear impacts. Again, we lack the data to make such a 
determination.
    We have decided against prohibiting shoulder belts for side-facing 
seats, a position contemplated in the NPRM, because we are unaware of 
any demonstrable increase in associated risk. There have been some 
claims that a shoulder belt increases the risk of neck injury during a 
frontal collision. The Australian Design Rule ADR 5/04, ``Anchorages 
for Seatbelts'' has specifically prohibited shoulder belts for side-
facing seats since 1975. However, it appears that this prohibition was 
based on a perceived risk rather than any documented injuries. We note 
that a study commissioned by the European Commission regarding side-
facing seats on minibuses and motor coaches found that the addition of 
a panel directly in front of a side-facing seat would best protect a 
restrained occupant in a frontal crash in a manner that would prevent 
either spool-out from the belt or belt loading against the neck.\5\ 
While such a design may be desirable, the agency presently cannot 
demonstrate any risk to overall safety sufficient either to prohibit 
shoulder belts altogether or to require they only be used in 
conjunction with a compartmentalization feature like a panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This report may be viewed at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/automotive/pagesbackground/safetybelts/safety_of_passengers_cranfield.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, we have decided against requiring Type 2 belts for the 
front inboard seating position in any vehicles. Both GM and Ford were 
opposed to adding such a requirement for any vehicles, while Advocates, 
NADA and SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. urged that a requirement be adopted at a 
minimum for vehicles with only a single row of seats.
    Assuming a ten percent increase in belt usage based on the presence 
of a Type 2 belt instead of a lap belt, we estimate that requiring Type 
2 belts for the inboard front seat would result in 16 fewer fatalities 
and 69 fewer injuries (AIS 2-5). If Type 2 belts were required for the 
front inboard seats in passenger cars and LTVs, the estimated cost per 
equivalent life saved would be $10.50 million compared to $4.57 million 
for the rear inboard seats in those vehicles.\6\ Part of the reason for 
the cost disparity is that the inboard seating position of a front seat 
is only very rarely used. Accordingly, NHTSA does not believe it can 
justify the cost associated with mandating lap/shoulder belts in the 
front seat, even when only a single row of seating is available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Based on cost ($161.9 million for front inboard seats and 
$239.8 million for rear inboard seats) divided by equivalent lives 
saved, discounted at a rate of 7 percent (15.42 for front inboard 
seats and 52.47 for rear inboard seats).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In passenger cars and LTVs with more than a single row of seats, 
front seats with an inboard seating position are typically 60/40 split 
bench seats which allow 60% of the seat to be adjusted independently of 
the remaining 40%. GM stated that with such a design it would be 
difficult to install an integrated safety belt that did not present 
significant problems with safety belt fit. We note that the rear bench 
seats on many LTVs also utilize a 60/40 design, yet there appear to be 
no major problems installing Type 2 belts for the inboard position of 
these seats. However, independent seat adjustment is likely to be an 
issue for front seats. Since we have decided against requiring Type 2 
belts for front inboard seating positions based on cost considerations, 
we need not address the issue of whether the potentially unique 
characteristics of front bench seats preclude effective installation of 
Type 2 belts for the inboard seating position.
    The inboard seating position in pick-up trucks with only a single 
row of seats potentially raises different practicability problems as 
the front seat in vehicles with both front and rear seats. GM argued 
against requiring Type 2 belts for these single row seats, claiming a 
lap/shoulder belt requirement for these seating positions would require 
significant strengthening of the vehicle floor or reconfiguration of 
the rear window. In contrast, Syson-Hille and SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 
noted that several manufacturers already have lap/shoulder belts in the 
inboard seating position of either single row pick-up trucks or the 
rear bench seat of trucks with two rows of seats. NHTSA acknowledges 
the feasibility of installing an inboard lap/shoulder belt in a single 
row pick-up, particularly when the vehicle does not have a 60/40 bench 
seat. While some reinforcement of the seat or the back of the cab may 
be necessary, we do not consider this degree of redesign to be 
insurmountable. However, we have decided against mandating Type 2 belts 
for the inboard seating positions of these seats because the safety 
benefits associated with mandating Type 2 belts in the inboard front 
seating positions is too small to justify their cost. In part, this is 
due to the low belt use rate in this position: 12.2 percent. However, 
we expect manufacturers will continue their practice of voluntarily 
installing Type 2 belts.
    We have also decided to retain the existing exception from FMVSS 
No. 208's Type 2 belt requirements for motor homes, walk-in vans and 
postal vehicles. Only Syson-Hille commented on the exception in its 
entirety, arguing that there was no reason to continue to exempt any 
vehicles from the belt requirements of the standard. It observed that 
most manufacturers of the exempted vehicles already install Type 2 
belts for the front outboard seats. RVIA and Ford supported retaining 
the existing exception for motor homes, with RVIA noting the large 
number of seats in motor homes with multi-functional applications. 
SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. was opposed to retaining the exception for motor 
homes, stating that families are often unaware that the rear seating 
positions in these vehicles are not required to be equipped with the 
same belts systems as other vehicles.
    While we agree that the Syson-Hille and SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 
comments may have merit, we do not have sufficient information to know 
the full implications that removing the exemption would have on those 
seating

[[Page 70908]]

positions. While the exempted vehicles may already be equipped with 
Type 2 belts at the front outboard positions, equipping the back seats 
of these vehicles with a Type 2 belt may present different challenges. 
The rear seats of these vehicles often have multi-functional or unique 
applications that may make installation of a Type 2 belt impracticable. 
Accordingly, we are not making any changes to the exception in today's 
rule.

B. Allowance for Detachable Type 2 Belts

    FMVSS No. 208 currently permits detachable shoulder belts on Type 2 
belts installed in the outboard rear seats that are removable and 
swivel seats. For both of these seat designs, the shoulder belt may be 
detachable from the lap belt at either the upper or lower anchorage, 
but not both. A manufacturer may use a push button release similar to 
releases used for non-detachable belts. While the standard permits 
detachability of the shoulder portion of the belt, many manufacturers 
use a ``minibuckle'' design that permits the entire belt to detach from 
the seat and retract into the upper shoulder anchorage. This design is 
also used on belt systems currently required to have only a lap belt. 
This minibuckle design reduces the possibility for misuse since the lap 
belt is not independently available for use. The regulatory language 
governing belt detachability for swivel seats is different than that 
applicable to removable seats because the shoulder portion of the belt 
is only designed to be used when the seat is in its forward-facing mode 
and the standard requires that a lap belt be provided for all other 
seat positions that can be used while the vehicle is in motion. Thus, 
the minibuckle design does not appear to have an application for swivel 
seats. Given the advances in safety belt technology, we asked whether 
it was appropriate to reconsider the detachability allowances for these 
seats.
    In the NPRM, the agency acknowledged that for certain seat designs 
Type 2 belts could not be installed without integrating the upper 
shoulder anchorage into the seat back or permitting designs that allow 
for detachability of the shoulder belt. Because detachable belts can be 
misused, we were particularly interested in exploring the possibility 
of integrated belts.
    Ford and RVIA opposed any requirement that would have the effect of 
mandating integrated seat belts at any seating position. Ford noted 
that the cost associated with strengthening both the seat and the floor 
pan were significant and that the additional weight added to a seat as 
a result of this strengthening was sufficient to make removability of 
the seats impractical. Ford argued that the seats would become so heavy 
that they could not be readily removed. GM noted that one of its 
vehicles has a removable seat with an integrated safety belt, but 
acknowledged that the additional weight could make it more difficult to 
remove the seat. RVIA's concerns were related to a folding or removable 
sofa-type bench seat commonly installed in conversion vans. It argued 
that the cost associated with integrating Type 2 belts into such a seat 
would be too costly compared to the potential benefits associated with 
requiring Type 2 belts for this seat design.
    The Alliance urged the agency to consider adopting a rule that 
would expand the existing allowance for detachable shoulder belts to 
seats beyond those currently permitted under FMVSS No. 208. It noted 
that manufacturers are moving away from removable seats and towards 
fold-down designs that permit the seat to be stored in the vehicles. 
Ford and GM advocated permitting detachable belts for small buses, 
although Ford's dealerships offer seats with integrated belts as an 
option on Ford's E-series vans.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These seats are manufactured by TDM, an after-market seat 
supplier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have decided to retain the existing detachability provisions 
with some revision. Additionally, we have decided to expand the 
detachability provision to the inboard seating position of folding 
seats, bus seats, and outboard seats adjacent to an aisle. We believe 
that integrated belt designs are not an optimal design for all types of 
seats. They appear to be particularly problematic for removable seats 
because of the added weight.
    We have determined that the minibuckle design commonly found in the 
rear inboard seat positions of folding seats and in outboard seats 
adjacent to an aisle can be incorporated into a vehicle at about half 
the cost of an integrated belt. The cost of installing a shoulder belt 
in the inboard seat is approximately $16.00 per seat. The cost of 
strengthening the seat to accommodate the shoulder belt is 
approximately $31.00. If a detachable belt is used, the cost of the 
shoulder belt is similar to the previous cost ($16.00). Also, the cost 
associated with strengthening the roof structure to accommodate the 
shoulder belt anchorage is approximately $16.00. The total cost for an 
integrated belt would be approximately $47.00, while the approximate 
total cost for a detachable belt system would be $32.00.
    We will no longer permit a pushbutton design to detach the belt; 
instead, a key or key-like object must be used to detach the belt. In 
its comment to the NPRM, the Alliance noted that minibuckle systems 
often cannot be released via a pushbutton. Rather, an object can be 
inserted into the buckle through a small hole to release the latch. We 
believe this design feature reduces the likelihood that the minibuckle 
will be inadvertently released. Manufacturers may choose to use the 
door or ignition key since these keys are always likely to be in the 
driver's possession when the belt needs to be detached. Consistent with 
our intention to maximize correct use of the belt, there is no 
provision requiring that a tool be used to reattach the belt. We 
anticipate that manufacturers will continue to use an attachment 
mechanism that permits the belt simply to plug into the mated latch.
    Additionally, except for swivel seats, we will no longer permit the 
shoulder belt to be detached independently of the lap belt. We are 
concerned that an occupant may choose to use only the lap portion or 
the shoulder portion of the belt if independent detachability is 
permitted. The performance of shoulder only belts and lap only belts 
has historically proven to be problematic and is part of the reason we 
now require Type 2 belts.
    These new requirements apply to the belts at all seating positions 
for which a detachable belt is permitted. Although we did not propose 
to change the existing requirements for the outboard seating positions, 
we expressed our opinion that provision for detachability may no longer 
be warranted and specifically sought comment on whether to continue to 
permit detachable designs. Based on our review of the existing fleet 
and comments from vehicle manufacturers, we have determined that the 
need for detachability still exists, but not in the form presently 
permitted.
1. Removable Seats
    No commenters opposed the retention of the existing detachability 
allowance for readily removable seats. The detachability allowance was 
intended to facilitate removal of these seats for cargo carrying 
purposes. Certainly detachability appears to be the only option for an 
inboard seating position other than integrated seats; otherwise, the 
seats could not be removed from the vehicle. As noted above, integrated 
seat designs add additional weight to the

[[Page 70909]]

seat and impose additional costs on manufacturers.
    We note that many new LTVs with removable seats do not offer 
detachable Type 2 belts at the rear outboard seating positions. 
Instead, the manufacturers have chosen either to use integrated Type 2 
belts or to mount the upper and lower shoulder anchorages to the 
outboard pillars. Thus, while permitting detachability for these 
seating positions at this time, we plan to monitor the need to retain 
the detachability allowance for outboard positions on readily removable 
seats.
    We also note that this provision for detachable belts for seating 
positions on readily removable seats should relieve much of RVIA's and 
FlexSteel Industry's concerns with sofa-type bench seats since RVIA 
stated that these seats are generally removable.
2. Folding Seats
    While not proposed in the NPRM, we are extending our allowance for 
detachable Type 2 belts to inboard seating positions on folding seats, 
as urged by the Alliance. As noted by the Alliance, manufacturers 
appear to be moving away from removable seats toward seats that can be 
folded into the floor pan, providing additional cargo carrying 
capacity. Unlike the inboard seating position on a removable seat, a 
Type 2 belt that is not integrated into a folding seat can remain 
attached to the vehicle while the seat is in its stowed position. 
However, as discussed by the Alliance, prohibiting detachability limits 
the effective use of the cargo carrying space. This is because the 
shoulder belt would extend from the upper anchorage down into the 
folded seat.
    Given the increased use of minibuckle designs for the inboard 
seating positions of folding seats currently in production, we are 
confident that this type of detachability can resolve the concerns 
raised by the Alliance while assuring the presence of a Type 2 belt in 
the inboard seating positions. We have decided against permitting 
detachable belts at the outboard seating position of these seats 
because FMVSS No. 208 does not currently have such an allowance and we 
believe manufacturers can use the roof or side pillars to attach the 
upper shoulder anchorage. The problems associated with interference of 
the shoulder belt and cargo are not applicable to outboard seating 
positions because the shoulder belt will be adjacent to the vehicle's 
interior paneling.
    Rather than adopting the Alliance's suggestion that folding seats 
be defined as ``seats that can be folded into the floor pan,'' we have 
defined the term ``folding seat'' to mean any seat which permits the 
folding of the entire seat back such that no part of the seat back 
extends more than 10 inches above the highest seating reference point 
on the seat. Under this definition those sofa-type seats installed in 
conversion vans would likely qualify as a folding seat, and a 
minibuckle design could be used at the center seating position.
    We believe the suggested wording provided by the Alliance is non-
objective and arguably could require that the seat fold completely 
flat. While folding seats in minivans may fold completely flat, those 
on station wagons and smaller SUVs generally fold at a slight angle. We 
believe detachability should be limited to those circumstances in which 
the cargo carrying capacity of the vehicle would otherwise be adversely 
affected. The slight angle in the folding seat design of these vehicles 
does not impair the cargo carrying capacity of the vehicle when the 
seat is in its folded position. Given the width of the seat back 
structure, we believe the 10-inch allowance will accommodate these 
seats without creating a definition of a folding seat with near 
universal applicability. We have decided to measure from the highest 
seating reference point because a seat may have different seating 
reference points among its different designated seating positions.
    We acknowledge the Alliance's comment that many sedans have rear 
seat designs that permit part, but not all of the seat back to fold 
down to accommodate long, narrow cargo such as skis. If the seat design 
is such that the entire seat cannot be folded down, we believe the 
vehicle should have sufficient structure behind the rear seat to anchor 
the upper shoulder belt anchorage. Accordingly, no provision for 
detachability is needed.
3. Seats Located Adjacent to an Aisle
    Currently, rear outboard seats located adjacent to an aisle are 
permitted to have only a lap belt. We have decided to require these 
seats be equipped with a Type 2 belt because we believe the belt 
technologies currently used for these seating positions demonstrate the 
feasibility of a Type 2 design. GM has provided Type 2 belts for this 
type of seat since 1991. The GM system uses the same type of minibuckle 
design discussed above. Ford also provides a Type 2 belt for its seats 
located adjacent to an aisle. Ford did not provide information on 
whether its belts were detachable, but urged the agency to adopt a 
detachability allowance.
    NHTSA has long recognized that belts installed at seating positions 
located adjacent to an aisle can impede ready access to or egress from 
seats located behind them. This is why we originally allowed lap belts 
at these seating positions. While recognizing the benefit of a Type 2 
belt over a lap belt, we believe there is a need for Type 2 belts at 
this seating position to be detachable. Accordingly, we are adopting a 
detachability allowance for these seating positions.
4. Bus Seats
    In the NPRM, the agency proposed to require Type 2 belts in all 
rear designated seating positions of buses with a GWVR of 4,536 kg 
(10,000 lb) or less. These small buses are primarily 12- and 15-
passenger vans. We specifically sought comment on potential benefits 
and disadvantages associated with such a requirement, as well as 
potential technological impediments. Based on the comments, we have 
decided to require Type 2 belts, but to permit detachability.
    We received four comments addressing the proposed requirement, all 
of them supportive. Syson-Hille and SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. noted that 
12- and 15-passenger vans are often used by child care facilities and 
church groups to transport children. Given this use, they believe it is 
important to require a Type 2 belt for these seats. Syson-Hille also 
pointed out that the European Union requires all buses manufactured 
since 1999 to have either Type 2 belts or lap belt with energy-
absorbing seats. To meet a Type 2 belt requirement for small buses, 
both Ford and GM suggested that integrated belts would be required. 
While integrated seats might require additional seat and floor 
structure for an integrated belt design, GM stated that there was no 
technological impediment to an integrated belt design. Syson-Hille 
noted that the Mercedes mini-bus sold in Europe has integrated Type 2 
belts for every rear designated seating position.
    While it appears that integrated belts may be the best 
technological solution for Type 2 belts in buses, we have decided to 
permit detachability for inboard designated seating positions on buses, 
regardless of whether the seats are removable, may be folded, or are 
adjacent to an aisle.\8\ For vehicles with

[[Page 70910]]

multiple rear inboard seating positions (i.e., three or more), the cost 
of equipping those seating positions with detachable belts is 
considerably less than that necessary to accommodate seat back and 
floor pan reinforcements associated with integrated belts. Thus, it is 
appropriate to provide sufficient flexibility to permit bus 
manufacturers to install Type 2 belts in a manner that accommodates 
different floor structure designs and interior architectures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ While Ford stated in its comments that body-mounted belts 
pose a risk to other occupants in a crash, it did not provide a 
basis for this statement. We are puzzled as to why this risk would 
present itself in a bus but not in a LTV. Because we believe body-
mounted belts can be safely mounted in buses, we are not extending 
the detachability allowance to outboard seats on buses unless they 
are adjacent to an aisle. This approach is consistent with the rest 
of today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Swivel Seats
    Currently, FMVSS No. 208 specifies that seats that can be adjusted 
to be forward-facing and to face in some other direction (e.g., swivel 
seats) must have at least a lap belt at all positions in which the seat 
may be placed while the vehicle is in motion. Additionally, the seat 
must have a Type 2 belt that is usable while the seat is in its 
forward-facing position. The shoulder portion of the Type 2 belt may be 
detachable from the lap portion, thus requiring only a single belt 
design to accommodate all potential seating positions. The standard 
also permits readily removable seats to have a shoulder belt that may 
be detached at either the upper or lower shoulder belt anchorage, but 
not both.
    In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether there was any reason to 
retain this exception, given the availability of integrated Type 2 belt 
designs. It appears that swivel seats are only used in the conversion 
van industry and in vehicles altered or modified for persons with 
disabilities. Only RVIA was able to provide any opinion on the cost 
associated with Type 2 belts and swivel seats. However, it was unable 
to provide any cost estimates on integrated belts since they are not 
used by the conversion van industry. The belts currently used for these 
seats were developed at a time when the conversion van industry was 
much larger than it is now, and it was in a better position to spread 
the cost associated with product development among a much larger 
industry. Accordingly, we believe the development costs associated with 
developing swivel seats that have a Type 2 belt integrated into the 
seat are likely to be too large for the industry to withstand.
    Nevertheless, we do have concerns about the degree of detachability 
currently permitted for these seats under FMVSS No. 208. We believe 
that the belts for swivel seats should provide the same level of 
protection as the belts for other seats. The current requirements 
provide the occupant with the option of using a Type 2 belt when the 
seat is facing forward. However, these requirements are inconsistent 
with the new requirement that rear-facing seats be equipped with a Type 
2 belt. Accordingly, we have amended the provision for belt 
detachability for swivel seats to require a Type 2 belt when the seat 
is positioned in either the forward or rear-facing mode (including any 
position  30 degrees from the forward-or rearward-facing 
mode), and a lap belt when positioned in all other modes that can be 
used while the vehicle is in motion.

VI. Phase-In of the New Requirements

    Anton's Law requires that NHTSA issue a final rule not later than 
December 2004. It further specifies that the final rule be implemented, 
in stages, starting not later than September 1, 2005, and be fully 
implemented no later than September 1, 2007. Thus, the rule will be 
phased-in between September 1, 2005 and September 1, 2007. We did not 
receive any comments on the proposed phase-in schedule, other than a 
request by RVIA that conversion vans be given an additional year for 
compliance. Accordingly, we are adopting the following phase-in 
schedule as proposed in the NPRM:
     MY 2006 (September 1, 2005 through August 31, 2006): 50 
percent of all vehicles that are produced by manufacturers and are 
subject to the phase-in must comply. Advance credits for early 
compliance may be used on a one-to-one basis.
     MY 2007 (September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007): 80 
percent of all vehicles that are produced by manufacturers and are 
subject to the phase-in must comply. Advance credits may be used on a 
one-to-one basis.
     MY 2008 and beyond (on or after September 1, 2007): all 
vehicles, regardless of whether they are subject to the phase-in, must 
comply. No advance credits may be used.
    The phase-in schedule for this rulemaking is dictated by statute. 
Thus, NHTSA does not have the authority to provide manufacturers of 
conversion vans an additional year to certify compliance with the new 
requirements, as requested by RVIA. However, as proposed in the NPRM, 
we have decided against applying the phase-in requirements to 
manufacturers of fewer than 5,000 vehicles produced for the U.S. market 
each year, manufacturers of incomplete vehicles, and alterers. No 
comments were submitted objecting to the agency's proposal to excuse 
them during the phase-in. We believe a phase-in that commences so soon 
after publication of the final rule presents a hardship for these 
manufacturers. Accordingly, these manufacturers need only assure that 
their vehicles comply with today's requirements by September 1, 2007.
    As noted in the NPRM, final-stage manufacturers have no control 
over the vehicles that the previous-stage manufacturer decides to 
modify to meet the phase-in requirements. Accordingly, the final-stage 
manufacturer may have little or no choice in purchasing an incomplete 
vehicle that meets the requirements of the proposed rule. While 
alterers have more control, since they are only purchasing completed 
vehicles, they may have limited control over purchasing completed, 
certified vehicles in a manner that would allow them to meet the phase-
in requirements. The final-stage manufacturers and alterers most likely 
to be affected by today's rule are those who manufacture conversion 
vans. Removal and replacement of existing seats is one of the most 
common modifications of these vehicles. Thus, the existence in the 
market of vehicles certified to today's requirement is largely 
irrelevant since the seats equipped with the required belts are likely 
to be removed as part of the conversion. If an alterer removes a seat 
supplied by the original vehicle manufacturer, the alterer must replace 
it with a seat equipped with a Type 2 belt. We do not believe it is 
unreasonable to provide final-stage manufacturers and alterers with the 
maximum permissible time to locate seats and seat belt assemblies that 
comply with today's requirements. Accordingly, all multi-stage and 
altered vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2007 must be 
certified as complying with the new requirements. We have also decided 
to exclude small volume manufacturers (i.e., manufacturers of less than 
5,000 vehicles per year produced for the U.S. market) from the phase-in 
because of their small size.
    As proposed, we have decided to allow manufacturers of two or fewer 
carlines to opt out of the first year of the phase-in as long as 100% 
of their vehicles are certified as complying with the new requirements 
during the second year of the phase-in. NHTSA notes that, unlike the 
advanced air bag or tire pressure monitor system rulemakings, in which 
the technologies used to comply with the standard are relatively new, 
the technologies for lap/shoulder belts are well established. 
Accordingly, these manufacturers are unlikely to face the supply-and-
demand problems in this rulemaking anticipated in the advanced air bag 
or tire pressure

[[Page 70911]]

monitor system rulemakings. For this reason, NHTSA has decided against 
allowing these manufacturers to claim advanced credits for that second 
year. We believe it is unlikely that such credits would be needed.
    The regulatory text addressing the phase-in reporting requirements 
gathers together the phase-in requirements for all safety standards 
being phased-in and places them in a single part of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, 49 CFR Part 585. This will allow people henceforth to look 
to a single source for all reporting requirements associated with 
phase-ins.

VII. Other Issues

    In the NPRM, we sought comment on three issues unrelated to the 
adoption of a Type 2 belt requirement. We asked for comment because 
these three areas are ones which have been raised with the agency. 
Dependent on the public's response, we could choose to initiate 
rulemaking.
    The first area of interest was the comfort and convenience test 
procedures for rear designated seating positions. No commenters saw any 
need to revise the existing requirements for comfort and convenience. 
While some commenters believed the existing requirements were 
sufficient, others argued that market forces would dictate comfort. 
Based on the comments, we see no need to further address comfort and 
convenience issues at this time.
    Second, NHTSA sought information on seat belt fit studies conducted 
on rear seat occupants of varying size and stature and the results of 
any dynamic testing of any adjustable seat belt anchorages at different 
anchorage adjustments. We requested this information to determine the 
appropriateness of requiring adjustable anchorages for rear lap/
shoulder belts. The Alliance commented that, over the past several 
years, it has been involved in a technical working group to develop 
voluntary best practices on seat belt fit. Transport Canada has also 
been involved in the working group. While the working group has been 
concentrating on front seats, Transport Canada has asked that it also 
work toward the development of criteria for the rear seat. No one 
offered any studies or data reflecting seat belt fit or the performance 
of adjustable seat belt anchorages in dynamic crash tests, although 
SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. argued for the adoption of adjustable upper 
anchorages in rear seats. NHTSA, however, has been conducting its own 
research on safety belt fit in response to section 3(b)(2) of Anton's 
Law. Section 3(b)(2) requires NHTSA to consider whether to establish 
performance requirements for seat belt fit when used with booster seats 
and other belt guidance devices. The results of this research could 
lead the agency to pursue rulemaking in this area in the future.
    Our final area of interest was whether there was a need to extend 
the frontal impact crash test requirements of FMVSS No. 208 to the rear 
seating positions. The Alliance, RVIA and Ford all opposed extending 
the dynamic crash test requirements, arguing that it is ``universally 
known'' that the rear seat is the safest seating location in a vehicle. 
Syson-Hille, Bidez and Associates, and SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. all 
advocated for the adoption of requirements that would assess the injury 
potential of occupants of all ages and sizes in a dynamic environment.
    While dynamic testing in the rear seat is beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking, we note that we have two research programs that involve 
dynamic crash testing with rear seat occupants. The agency is running 
various types of child restraint systems in its frontal New Car 
Assessment Program (NCAP) tests. Results from those tests are being 
analyzed to determine whether such testing would provide meaningful 
consumer information. The second research program has focused on 
studying rear integrated seat performance in a dynamic crash test 
environment. This research has been expanded to evaluate and compare 
the performance of non-integrated seat belts and rear outboard seats 
for different sized occupants. Once this research program is completed, 
we expect to be in a better position to evaluate the need to further 
upgrade the rear seat belt requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
    NADA asked that the preamble to this rule discuss whether the 
agency intends to promote retrofit shoulder belt kits for existing 
vehicles and whether we intend to commence rulemaking to require LATCH 
systems for rear inboard seats. We do not intend to promote retrofit 
shoulder belt kits because we do not believe there is sufficient demand 
for such kits. Manufacturers are, of course, free to offer such kits if 
they desire. When first amending FMVSS No. 208 to require Type 2 belts 
in the rear outboard seating positions, the agency did actively promote 
retrofit kits. However, we discovered that consumer demand was 
exceptionally low. We have been told by at least one manufacturer that 
it ended up with several hundred unwanted kits. Based on that 
experience, we see no value in promoting such kits again. Additionally, 
most passenger cars and approximately half of the LTV fleet already 
have Type 2 belts at the rear inboard designated seating position. 
Accordingly, the need for such kits is less now than it was in the 
early 1990s when the original rear lap/shoulder belt provisions were 
adopted.

VIII. Costs and Benefits Associated With the Final Rule

    As noted earlier in this document, we anticipate that today's rule 
will result in 5 to 16 fewer fatalities and 111 to 202 fewer injuries 
(AIS 2-5) per year in passenger cars and 5 to 17 fewer fatalities and 
134 to 293 fewer injuries (AIS 2-5) per year in LTVs. The reason for 
providing a range of numbers is that the lower numbers reflect 
anticipated benefits if the addition of a shoulder belt has no impact 
on increased belt use, while the higher numbers assume a 10 percent 
increase in belt use due to the presence of a shoulder belt.

  Table 1.--Estimated Lives Saved by Lap/Shoulder Belt at Rear Inboard
                            Seating Position
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Incremental
                                            Incremental     benefits of
                                            benefits of    lap/shoulder
                                           lap/shoulder    belt compared
                                           belt compared    to lap belt
                                          to lap belt at     with 10%
                                            current belt    increase in
                                             use rate        belt use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Cars..........................               5              16
Light Trucks............................               5              17
                                         -----------------
    Total...............................              10              33
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 70912]]

    While no specific benefits have been estimated for 12- and 15-
passenger vans, safety benefits are expected given that belt use is 
critical in these types of vehicles, particularly in rollover crashes. 
At 14%, restraint use among fatally injured occupants in single vehicle 
crashes among all vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 or less is the lowest 
in 15-passenger vans. Restraint use in these crashes in passenger cars 
is 30%; restraint use in sport utility vehicles is 25%; restraint use 
in other vans is 26%; and restraint use in pickups is 18%. An 
unrestrained occupant in a 15-passenger van is about four times as 
likely to be ejected from the van as is a properly restrained 
occupant.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Analysis of Crashes Involving 15-Passenger Vans, NHTSA 
Technical Report, DOT HS 809 735, May 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total cost of complying with today's rule will vary depending 
on how manufacturers choose to design belts that cannot be attached to 
existing vehicle structures without some modification. Today's rule 
permits two options for removable and folding seats, as well as for 
swivel seats and seats located adjacent to an aisle. If manufacturers 
choose to comply with today's requirements using integrated seat belt 
designs, we estimate that the associated cost of compliance for the 
passenger car fleet will be approximately $40.64 million. For the LTV 
fleet that cost is estimated at $199.21 million. If manufacturers 
choose to comply with today's requirements using detachable seat belt 
designs, we estimate the associated cost of compliance for the 
passenger car fleet will drop to $36.12 million, with an associated 
cost for the LTV fleet of $142.73 million. It is likely that 
manufacturers will choose between the two options depending on vehicle 
characteristics and perceived customer desires. Thus, the anticipated 
total cost of the rule would fall somewhere between $178.85 million and 
$239.86 million (in year 2000 economics).
    Assessing the cost of today's rule in terms of cost per equivalent 
life saved provides an indication of the cost associated with improving 
the entire fleet of vehicles to reduce the risk of injury or death to 
those individuals involved in a crash where the lack of a lap shoulder 
belt in the inboard rear seating positions would otherwise lead to 
injury or death.
    Assuming all manufacturers choose to meet the requirements of 
today's rule using traditional belt designs where possible and 
integrated seat belts where needed, the cost of the rule per equivalent 
life saved for passenger cars discounted at 3% and 7%, is $1.57 million 
and $1.92 million, respectively, while the discounted cost for LTVs is 
$4.99 million and $6.36 million respectively.
    Assuming, on the other hand, that all manufacturers use detachable 
belts rather than integrated belts, the cost per equivalent life saved 
drops. For passenger cars the cost per equivalent life saved is $1.40 
million at a 3% discount rate and $1.7 million at a 7% discount rate. 
For LTVs the respective numbers are $3.58 million and $4.56 million per 
equivalent life saved.
    We have also conducted a benefit-cost analysis to determine whether 
the cost of today's rule outweighs the associated benefit. In terms of 
assessing overall benefit over cost, a positive number indicates that 
the benefits outweigh the associated cost, while a negative number 
indicates that the requirement will cost more than the associated 
benefit. In order to conduct a cost benefit analysis, we took the 
equivalent lives saved and multiplied it by a generic value of life, in 
this instance $3.5 million.\10\ From the product of these two figures, 
we then subtract the cost of today's rule. Thus, for passenger cars, 
the net benefit associated for today's rule is $49.88 and $33.65 
million, discounted at 3% and 7%, respectively, if all manufacturers 
use integrated belts where needed. The benefit for passenger cars if 
detachable belts are used is somewhat higher at $54.38 and $38.15 
million, discounted at 3% and 7%, respectively. For the LTV fleet, the 
benefit associated with today's rule is substantially smaller. If only 
integrated belts are used where traditional belts systems are 
impractical, the benefits associated with today's rule never exceed the 
associated cost for the LTV fleet, at -$59.47 million (3% discount), 
and -$89.64 million (7% discount). Using detachable belts where needed 
results in a smaller disbenefit with a 3% discount value of $3.27 
million and a 7% discount value of $33.44 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ While we recognize that the value of human life cannot be 
measured in absolute terms, this amount represents a constant value 
needed to conduct a mathematical analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking is economically significant. 
Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this 
rulemaking document under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.'' The rulemaking action has also been determined to be 
significant under the Department's regulatory policies and procedures. 
The benefits and costs associated with today's rule have been briefly 
discussed earlier in this document. For a more detailed analysis, 
please refer to section VII of this notice and the final economic 
analysis supporting today's final rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) NHTSA has determined 
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The vast majority of affected 
motor vehicle manufacturers are not small businesses. Small 
organizations and small governmental units are not significantly 
affected by the final rule since the potential cost impacts associated 
with it should only slightly increase the price of new motor vehicles. 
A more complete analysis of the impact of today's rule on small 
businesses, organizations, and governmental units may be found in the 
final economic analysis.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this amendment for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has 
determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule has no 
substantial effect on the States, or on the current Federal-State 
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials. The final rule is 
not intended to preempt state tort civil actions, except to the extent 
that the agency has specifically determined that detachable Type 2 
belts meeting the requirements of this rule are permissible for vehicle 
seats specifically permitted to be equipped with detachable Type 2 
belts.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to 
prepare a

[[Page 70913]]

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 (adjusted for 
inflation with base year of 1995). This results in a value of $109 
million in year 2000 economics. The final rule requires the expenditure 
of resources above and beyond $109 million annually. NHTSA has explored 
various options based on the response to the public comments. We have 
determined that the cost associated with requiring Type 2 belts that 
integrated into the seat are unreasonably expensive and that the safety 
need addressed by this rulemaking can be more inexpensively achieved by 
permitting limited detachability of the Type 2 belts for certain seat 
designs.

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    The final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section 
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.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This rule contains 
a collection of information because of the phase-in reporting 
requirements. The purpose of the reporting requirements is to aid NHTSA 
in determining whether a manufacturer has complied with the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 208 during the phase-in of those 
requirements. There is no burden to the general public.
    We have submitted a request for OMB clearance of the collection of 
information required under today's final rule. These requirements and 
our estimates of the burden to vehicle manufacturers are as follows:
     NHTSA estimates there are 21 manufacturers of passenger 
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses having a GVWR 
of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
     NHTSA estimates that the total annual reporting and 
recordkeeping burden resulting from the collection of information is 
1,260 hours.
     NHTSA estimates that the total annual cost burden, in U.S. 
dollars, will be $0.00. No additional resources will be expended by 
vehicle manufacturers to gather annual production information because 
they already compile this data for their own use.
    Organizations and individuals that wish to submit comments on the 
information collection requirements should direct them within 30 days 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, 
New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503; Attention Desk 
Officer for NHTSA. Please fax the comments to: (202) 395-6974.

H. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined 
to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) 
concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason 
to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the 
regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the 
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, 
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by us.
    As noted earlier, this rulemaking is economically significant. 
Additionally, it is expected to have a disproportionate effect on 
children, since children are most likely to sit in the rear seat. 
However, the impact of this rulemaking on children will be beneficial 
instead of detrimental.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards \11\ in its regulatory activities unless doing so 
would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory 
provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise 
impractical. In meeting that requirement, we are required to consult 
with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies. Examples of 
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards 
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and 
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required 
by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the 
reasons for not using such standards. NHTSA has searched the voluntary 
consensus standards generally applicable to the manufacture of motor 
vehicles and is unaware of any standards relevant to this rule. No 
comments were received indicating that there were applicable standards 
that the agency failed to address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 
Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based 
or design-specific technical specifications and related management 
systems practices.'' They pertain to ``products and processes, such 
as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or 
material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Today's rule has been written with that directive in 
mind, although FMVSS No. 208, in general, is a complicated regulation. 
We note that some of the requirements adopted today are technical in 
nature. As such, they may require some understanding of technical 
terminology. We expect those parties directly affected by today's rule, 
i.e., vehicle manufacturers, to be familiar with such terminology.

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as 
follows:

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571, 585, 586, 589, 590, 596 and 
597

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Tires.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 continues to read as 
follows:


[[Page 70914]]


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

0
2. Section 571.201 is amended by revising S6.1.6.2 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.201  Standard No. 201; Occupant protection in interior 
impact.

* * * * *
    S6.1.6.2 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer must be 
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an 
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration under 49 CFR Part 585, between the manufacturer 
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise 
be attributed under S6.1.6.1.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 571.208 is amended by adding S4.1.5.5, S4.1.5.5.1, 
S4.1.5.5.2, S4.2.7, S4.2.7.1 through S4.2.7.6, S4.4.5, S4.4.5.1, 
S4.4.5.2, S4.5.5, and S4.5.5.1 through S4.5.5.4 as follows:


Sec.  571.208  Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.

* * * * *
    S4.1.5.5 Passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 2007.
    S4.1.5.5.1 Except as provided in S4.1.5.5.2, each passenger car 
shall have a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 
209 and to S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard at each rear designated 
seating position, except that side-facing designated seating positions 
shall have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to 
Standard No. 209 and to S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard.
    S4.1.5.5.2 Any inboard designated seating position on a seat for 
which the entire seat back can be folded (including the head restraints 
and any other part of the vehicle attached to the seat back) such that 
no part of the seat back extends above a horizontal plane located 250 
mm above the highest SRP located on the seat may meet the requirements 
of S4.1.5.5.1 by use of a belt incorporating a release mechanism that 
detaches both the lap and shoulder portion at either the upper or lower 
anchorage point, but not both. The means of detachment shall be a key 
or key-like object.
* * * * *
    S4.2.7 Rear seating positions in trucks, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2007 with a GVWR of 
10,000 lbs. (4,536 kg) or less.
    S4.2.7.1 Except as provided in S4.2.7.2, S4.2.7.3, S4.2.7.4, 
S4.2.7.5, and S4.2.7.6, each truck and each multipurpose passenger 
vehicle, other than a motor home, a walk-in van-type truck, or a 
vehicle designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service with 
a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. (4,536 kg) or less, or a vehicle carrying 
chassis-mount camper with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500-10,000 
lbs. (3,855-4,536 kg), shall be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt 
assembly at every rear designated seating position other than a side-
facing position, except that Type 2 seat belt assemblies installed in 
compliance with this requirement shall conform to Standard No. 209 (49 
CFR 571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. If a Type 2 seat 
belt assembly installed in conformity to this requirement incorporates 
any webbing tension-relieving device, the vehicle owner's manual shall 
include the information specified in S7.4.2(b) of this standard for the 
tension relieving device, and the vehicle shall conform to S7.4.2(c) of 
this standard. Side-facing designated seating positions shall be 
equipped, at the manufacturer's option, with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat 
belt assembly that conforms with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard.
    S4.2.7.2 Any rear designated seating position with a seat that can 
be adjusted to be forward-or rear-facing and to face some other 
direction shall either:
    (a) Meet the requirements of S4.2.7.1 with the seat in any position 
in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion; or
    (b) When the seat is in its forward-facing and/or rear-facing 
position or within  30 degrees of either position, have a 
Type 2 seat belt assembly with an upper torso restraint that conforms 
to S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard and that adjusts by means of an 
emergency locking retractor that conforms to Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 
571.209), which upper torso restraint may be detachable at either the 
buckle or the upper anchorage, but not both, and, when the seat is in 
any other position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in 
motion, have a Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat 
belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard.
    S4.2.7.3 Any rear designated seating position on a readily 
removable seat (i.e., a seat designed to be easily removed and replaced 
by means installed by the manufacturer for that purpose) may meet the 
requirements of S4.2.7.1 by use of a belt incorporating a release 
mechanism that detaches both the lap and shoulder portion at either the 
upper or lower anchorage point, but not both. The means of detachment 
shall be a key or key-like object.
    S4.2.7.4 Any inboard designated seating position on a seat for 
which the entire seat back can be folded such that no part of the seat 
back extends above a horizontal plane located 250 mm above the highest 
SRP located on the seat may meet the requirements of S4.2.7.1 by use of 
a belt incorporating a release mechanism that detaches both the lap and 
shoulder portion at either the upper or lower anchorage point, but not 
both. The means of detachment shall be a key or key-like object.
    S4.2.7.5 Any rear designated seating position adjacent to a walkway 
located between the seat and the side of the vehicle, which walkway is 
designed to allow access to more rearward designated seating positions 
may meet the requirements of S4.2.7.1 by use of a belt incorporating a 
release mechanism that detaches both the lap and shoulder portion at 
either the upper or lower anchorage point, but not both. The means of 
detachment shall be a key or key-like object.
    S4.2.7.6 Any rear side-facing designated seating position shall 
have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 and 
S7.2 of this standard.
* * * * *
    S4.4.5 Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. (4,536 kg) or less 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2007.
    S4.4.5.1 Except as provided in S4.4.5.2, S4.4.5.3, S4.4.5.4, 
S4.4.5.5 and S4.4.5.6 each bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of 
10,000 lbs. (4,536 kg) or less shall be equipped with a Type 2 seat 
belt assembly at every designated seating position other than a side-
facing position. Type 2 seat belt assemblies installed in compliance 
with this requirement shall conform to Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 
571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. If a Type 2 seat belt 
assembly installed in compliance with this requirement incorporates a 
webbing tension relieving device, the vehicle owner's manual shall 
include the information specified in S7.3.1(b) of this standard for the 
tension relieving device, and the vehicle shall conform to S7.4.2(c) of 
this standard. Side-facing designated seating positions shall be 
equipped, at the manufacturer's option, with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat 
belt assembly.
    S4.4.5.2 Any rear designated seating position with a seat that can 
be adjusted to be forward- or rear-facing and to face some other 
direction shall either:
    (a) Meet the requirements of S4.4.5.1 with the seat in any position 
in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion; or
    (b) (1) When the seat is in its forward-facing and/or rear-facing 
position, or

[[Page 70915]]

within  30 degrees of either position, have a Type 2 seat 
belt assembly with an upper torso restraint that
    (i) Conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard,
    (ii) Adjusts by means of an emergency locking retractor conforming 
to Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209), and
    (iii) May be detachable at the buckle or upper anchorage, but not 
both, and
    (2) When the seat is in any position in which it can be occupied 
while the vehicle is in motion, have a Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic 
portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 
of this standard.
    S4.4.5.3 Any rear designated seating position on a readily 
removable seat (that is, a seat designed to be easily removed and 
replaced by means installed by the manufacturer for that purpose) may 
meet the requirements of S4.4.5.1 by use of a belt incorporating a 
release mechanism that detaches both the lap and shoulder portion at 
either the upper or lower anchorage point, but not both. The means of 
detachment shall be a key or key-like object.
    S4.4.5.4 Any inboard designated seating position on a seat for 
which the entire seat back can be folded such that no part of the seat 
back extends above a horizontal plane located 250 mm above the highest 
SRP located on the seat may meet the requirements of S4.4.5.1 by use of 
a belt incorporating a release mechanism that detaches both the lap and 
shoulder portion at either the upper or lower anchorage point, but not 
both. The means of detachment shall be a key or key-like object.
    S4.4.5.5 Any rear designated seating position adjacent to a walkway 
located between the seat, which walkway is designed to allow access to 
more rearward designated seating positions, and not adjacent to the 
side of the vehicle may meet the requirements of S4.4.5.1 by use of a 
belt incorporating a release mechanism that detaches both the lap and 
shoulder portion at either the upper or lower anchorage point, but not 
both. The means of detachment shall be a key or key-like object.
    S4.4.5.6 Any rear side-facing designated seating position shall 
have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 and 
S7.2 of this standard.
* * * * *
    S4.5.5 Rear seat belt requirements for passenger cars and for 
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 
kg (10,000 lbs.) or less.
    S4.5.5.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2005 and 
before September 1, 2007.
    (a) For vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States on or 
after September 1, 2005, and before September 1, 2007, a percentage of 
the manufacturer's production as specified in S4.5.5.2, shall meet the 
requirements specified in either S4.1.5.5 for complying passenger cars, 
S4.2.7 for complying trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, or 
S4.4.5 for complying buses.
    (b) A manufacturer that sells two or fewer carlines, as that term 
is defined at 49 CFR 583.4, in the United States may, at the option of 
the manufacturer, meet the requirements of this paragraph, instead of 
paragraph (a) of this section. Each vehicle manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2006, and before September 1, 2007, shall meet the 
requirements specified in S4.1.5.5 for complying passenger cars, S4.2.7 
for complying trucks & multipurpose passenger vehicles, and S4.4.5 for 
complying buses. Credits for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 
2006 are not to be applied to the requirements of this paragraph.
    (c) Vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that 
are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) after having 
previously been certified in accordance with part 567 of this chapter 
are not subject to the requirements of S4.5.5.1.
    (d) Vehicles that are manufactured by a manufacturer that produces 
fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the United States are 
not subject to the requirements of S4.5.5.1.
    S4.5.5.2 Phase-in schedule.
    (a) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2005, and before 
September 1, 2006. Subject to S4.5.5.3(a), for vehicles manufactured on 
or after September 1, 2005, and before September 1, 2006, the amount of 
vehicles complying with S4.1.5.5 for complying passenger cars, S4.2.7 
for complying trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, or S4.4.5 for 
complying buses shall be not less than 50 percent of:
    (1) If the manufacturer has manufactured vehicles for sale in the 
United States during both of the two production years immediately prior 
to September 1, 2005, the manufacturer's average annual production of 
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2003, and before 
September 1, 2006, or
    (2) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2005, 
and before September 1, 2006.
    (b) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2006, and before 
September 1, 2007. Subject to S4.5.5.3(b), for vehicles manufactured on 
or after September 1, 2006, and before September 1, 2007, the amount of 
vehicles complying with S4.1.5.5 for complying passenger cars, S4.2.7 
for complying trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, or S4.4.5 for 
complying buses shall be not less than 80 percent of:
    (1) If the manufacturer has manufactured vehicles for sale in the 
United States during both of the two production years immediately prior 
to September 1, 2006, the manufacturer's average annual production of 
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2004, and before 
September 1, 2007, or
    (2) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2006, 
and before September 1, 2007.
    S4.5.5.3 Calculation of complying vehicles.
    (a) For the purposes of complying with S4.5.5.2(a), a manufacturer 
may count a vehicle if it is manufactured on or after February 7, 2005, 
but before September 1, 2006.
    (b) For the purposes of complying with S4.5.5.2(b), a manufacturer 
may count a vehicle if it:
    (1) Is manufactured on or after February 7, 2005, but before 
September 1, 2007, and
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S4.5.5.2(a).
    S4.5.5.4 Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer.
    (a) For the purpose of calculating average annual production of 
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured 
by each manufacturer under S4.5.5.2, a vehicle produced by more than 
one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer as 
follows, subject to paragraph (b) of this section.
    (1) A vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer.
    (2) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one 
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be 
attributed to the manufacturer that markets the vehicle.
    (b) A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be 
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an 
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 585, between the manufacturer 
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise 
be attributed under paragraph (a) of this section.

0
4. Section 571.225 is amended by revising S13.1.2(c), S14.2.2, and 
S16.3.2 to read as follows:

[[Page 70916]]

Sec.  571.225  Standard No. 225; Child restraint anchorage systems.

* * * * *
    S13.1.2 * * *
    (c) A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer must be 
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an 
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 585, between the manufacturer 
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise 
be attributed under S13.1.2(a) or (b).
* * * * *
    S14.2.2 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer must be 
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an 
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 585, between the manufacturer 
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise 
be attributed under S14.2.1.
* * * * *
    S16.3.2 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer must be 
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an 
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 585, between the manufacturer 
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise 
be attributed under S16.3.1.
* * * * *

PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Subpart A--General

Sec.
585.1 Definitions.
585.2 Phase-in reports.
585.3 Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer.
585.4 Petitions to extend period to file report.
Subpart B--Advanced Air Bag Phase-in Reporting Requirements
585.11 Scope.
585.12 Purpose.
585.13 Applicability.
585.14 Definitions.
585.15 Reporting requirements.
585.16 Records.
Subpart C--Rear Inboard Lap/Shoulder Belt Phase-in Reporting 
Requirements
585.21 Scope.
585.22 Purpose.
585.23 Applicability.
585.24 Reporting requirements.
585.25 Records.
Subpart D--Child Restraint Anchorage System Phase-in Reporting 
Requirements
585.31 Scope.
585.32 Purpose.
585.33 Applicability.
585.34 Response to inquiries.
585.35 Reporting requirements.
585.36 Records.
Subpart E--Fuel System Integrity Phase-in Reporting Requirements
585.41 Scope.
585.42 Purpose.
585.43 Applicability.
585.44 Response to inquiries.
585.45 Reporting requirements.
585.46 Records.
Subpart F--Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 Pounds or 
Less Phase-in Reporting Requirements
585.51 Scope.
585.52 Purpose.
585.53 Applicability.
585.54 Response to inquiries.
585.55 Reporting requirements.
585.56 Records.

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

0
5. Part 585 is revised to read as follows:

Subpart A--General


Sec.  585.1  Definitions.

    (a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in accordance 
with their statutory meaning.
    (b) The terms bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, motor 
vehicle, multipurpose passenger vehicle, passenger car, and truck are 
used as defined in Sec.  571.3 of this chapter.
    (c) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1 
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive, unless 
otherwise specified.


Sec.  585.2  Phase-in reports.

    Each report submitted to NHTSA under this part shall:
    (a) Identify the manufacturer;
    (b) State the full name, title, and address of the official 
responsible for preparing the report;
    (c) Identify the production year being reported on;
    (d) Contain a statement regarding whether or not the manufacturer 
complied with the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard addressed by the report, for the period covered by the report, 
and the basis for that statement;
    (e) Be written in the English language; and
    (f) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.


Sec.  585.3  Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer.

    Each manufacturer whose reporting of information is affected by one 
or more of the express written contracts permitted by a Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard subject to the reporting requirements of this 
part shall:
    (a) Report the existence of each contract, including the names of 
all parties to the contract and explain how the contract affects the 
report being submitted.
    (b) Report the number of vehicles covered by each contract in each 
production year.


Sec.  585.4  Petitions to extend period to file report.

    A petition for extension of the time to submit a report required 
under this part shall be received not later than 15 days before the 
report is due. The petition shall be submitted to: Administrator, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590. The filing of a petition does not 
automatically extend the time for filing a report. A petition will be 
granted only if the petitioner shows good cause for the extension, and 
if the extension is consistent with the public interest.

Subpart B--Advanced Air Bag Phase-in Reporting Requirements


Sec.  585.11  Scope.

    This subpart establishes requirements for manufacturers of 
passenger cars and trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 
kg or less to submit reports, and maintain records related to the 
reports, concerning the number and identification of such vehicles that 
are certified as complying with the advanced air bag requirements of 
Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR 571.208).


Sec.  585.12  Purpose.

    The purpose of these reporting requirements is to aid the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a 
manufacturer has complied with the advanced air bag requirements of 
Standard No. 208 during the phase-ins of those requirements.


Sec.  585.13  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to manufacturers of passenger cars and trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or 
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg or less. However, this 
subpart does not apply to any manufacturers whose

[[Page 70917]]

production consists exclusively of walk-in vans, vehicles designed to 
be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service, vehicles manufactured 
in two or more stages, and vehicles that are altered after previously 
having been certified in accordance with part 567 of this chapter. In 
addition, this subpart does not apply to manufacturers whose production 
of motor vehicles for the United States market is less than 5,000 
vehicles in a production year.


Sec.  585.14  Definitions.

    For the purposes of this subpart,
    (a) Phase one of the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 
208 refers to the requirements set forth in S14.1, S14.2, S14.5.1(a), 
S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 49 CFR 571.208.
    (b) Phase two of the advanced air bag reporting requirements of 
Standard No. 208 refers to the requirements set forth in S14.3, S14.4, 
S14.5.1(b), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 49 CFR 571.208.
    (c) Vehicles means passenger cars and trucks, buses, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or less and an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg or less manufactured for sale in 
the United States whose production of motor vehicles for sale in the 
United States is equal to or greater than 5,000 vehicles in a 
production year, and does not mean walk-in vans, vehicles designed to 
be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service, vehicles manufactured 
in two or more stages, and vehicles that are altered after previously 
having been certified in accordance with part 567 of this chapter.


Sec.  585.15  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Advanced credit phase-in reporting requirements. (1) Within 60 
days after the end of production years ending August 31, 2000, August 
31, 2001, August 31, 2002, and August 31, 2003, each manufacturer 
choosing to certify vehicles manufactured during any of those 
production years as complying with phase one of the advanced air bag 
requirements of Standard No. 208 shall submit a report to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration providing the information 
specified in paragraph (c) of this section and in Sec.  585.2 of this 
part.
    (2) Within 60 days after the end of the production year ending 
August 31, 2007, each manufacturer choosing to certify vehicles 
manufactured during that production year as complying with phase two of 
the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 shall submit a 
report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration providing 
the information specified in paragraph (c) of this section and in Sec.  
585.2 of this part.
    (b) Phase-in reporting requirements. (1) Within 60 days after the 
end of the production years ending August 31, 2004, August 31, 2005, 
and August 31, 2006, each manufacturer shall submit a report to the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding its compliance 
with phase one of the advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 
for its vehicles produced in that production year. The report shall 
provide the information specified in paragraph (d) of this section and 
in Sec.  585.2 of this part. Each report shall also specify the number 
of advance credit vehicles, if any, which are being applied to the 
production year being reported on.
    (2) Within 60 days after the end of production years ending August 
31, 2008, August 31, 2009, and August 31, 2010, each manufacturer shall 
submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
regarding its compliance with phase two of the advanced air bag 
requirements of Standard No. 208 for its vehicles produced in that 
production year. The report shall provide the information specified in 
paragraph (d) of this section and in Sec.  585.2 of this part. Each 
report shall also specify the number of advance credit vehicles, if 
any, which are being applied to the production year being reported on.
    (c) Advanced credit phase-in report content. (1) With respect to 
the reports identified in section 585.15(a)(1), each manufacturer shall 
report for the production year for which the report is filed the number 
of vehicles, by make and model year, that meet the applicable advanced 
air bag requirements of Standard No. 208, and to which advanced air bag 
requirements the vehicles are certified.
    (2) With respect to the report identified in section 585.15(a)(2), 
each manufacturer shall report the number of vehicles, by make and 
model year, that meet the applicable advanced air bag requirements of 
Standard No. 208, and to which the advanced air bag requirements the 
vehicles are certified.
    (d) Phase-in report content. (1) Basis for phase-in production 
requirements. For production years ending August 31, 2003, August 31, 
2004, August 31, 2005, August 31, 2007, August 31, 2008, and August 31, 
2009, each manufacturer shall provide the number of vehicles 
manufactured in the current production year, or, at the manufacturer's 
option, for the current production year and each of the prior two 
production years if the manufacturer has manufactured vehicles during 
both of the two production years prior to the year for which the report 
is being submitted.
    (2) Production of complying vehicles. Each manufacturer shall 
report for the production year for which the report is filed the number 
of vehicles, by make and model year, that meet the applicable advanced 
air bag requirements of Standard No. 208, and to which advanced air bag 
requirements the vehicles are certified.


Sec.  585.16  Records.

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle 
Identification Number of each vehicle for which information is reported 
under Sec.  585.15(c)(1) and (d)(2) until December 31, 2011.

Subpart C--Rear Inboard Lap/Shoulder Belt Phase-In Reporting 
Requirements


Sec.  585.21  Scope.

    This subpart establishes requirements for manufacturers of 
passenger cars and for trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less to submit reports, 
and maintain records related to the reports, concerning the number and 
identification of such vehicles that are certified as complying with 
the Type 2 seat belt requirements for rear seating positions of 
Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR 571.208).


Sec.  585.22  Purpose.

    The purpose of these reporting requirements is to assist the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a 
manufacturer has complied with the Type 2 seat belt requirements for 
rear seating positions of Standard No. 208.


Sec.  585.23  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to manufacturers of passenger cars and trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or 
less. However, this subpart does not apply to any manufacturers whose 
production consists exclusively of walk-in vans, vehicles designed to 
be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service, vehicles manufactured 
in two or more stages, and vehicles that are altered after previously 
having been certified in accordance with part 567 of this chapter. In 
addition, this subpart does not apply to manufacturers whose worldwide 
production of motor vehicles is less than 5,000 vehicles in a 
production year.

[[Page 70918]]

Sec.  585.24  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Advanced credit phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days 
after the end of the production year ending August 31, 2005, each 
manufacturer choosing to certify vehicles manufactured during that 
production year as complying with the Type 2 seat belt for each rear 
designated seating position requirements of Standard No. 208 shall 
submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
providing the information specified in paragraph (c) of this section 
and in Sec.  585.2 of this part.
    (b) Phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end 
of the production years ending August 31, 2006, and August 31, 2007, 
each manufacturer shall submit a report to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration regarding its compliance with the Type 2 seat 
belt for each rear designated seating position requirements of Standard 
No. 208 for its vehicles produced in that production year. The report 
shall provide the information specified in paragraph (d) of this 
section and in Sec.  585.2 of this part. Each report shall also specify 
the number of advance credit vehicles, if any, which are being applied 
to the production year being reported on.
    (c) Advanced credit phase-in report content. With respect to the 
reports identified in section 585.24(a), each manufacturer shall report 
for the production year for which the report is filed the number of 
vehicles, by make and model year, that meet the applicable Type 2 seat 
belt for each rear designated seating position requirements of Standard 
No. 208.
    (d) Phase-in report content. (1) Basis for phase-in production 
requirements. For production years ending August 31, 2006, and August 
31, 2007, each manufacturer shall provide the number of vehicles 
manufactured in the current production year, or, at the manufacturer's 
option, for the current production year and each of the prior two 
production years if the manufacturer has manufactured vehicles during 
each production year prior to the year for which the report is being 
submitted.
    (2) Production of complying vehicles. Each manufacturer shall 
report for the production year for which the report is filed the number 
of vehicles, by make and model year, that meet the applicable Type 2 
seat belt for each rear designated seating position requirements of 
Standard No. 208.


Sec.  585.25  Records.

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle 
Identification Number of each vehicle for which information is reported 
under Sec.  585.24(c) and (d)(2) until December 31, 2008.

Subpart D--Child Restraint Anchorage System Phase-In Reporting 
Requirements


Sec.  585.31  Scope.

    This subpart established requirements for manufacturers of 
passenger cars and of trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR of 3,855 kg or less, and of buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less, 
to submit a report, and maintain records related to the report, 
concerning the number of such vehicles that meet the requirements of 
Standard No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems (49 CFR 571.225).


Sec.  585.32  Purpose.

    The purpose of these reporting requirements is to assist the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a 
manufacturer has complied with Standard No. 225.


Sec.  585.33  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to manufacturers of passenger cars, and of 
trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or 
less, and of buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less. However, this 
subpart does not apply to vehicles excluded by S5 of Standard No. 225 
from the requirements of the standard.


Sec.  585.34  Response to inquiries.

    At any time during the production years ending August 31, 2000, 
August 31, 2001, August 31, 2002, and August 31, 2005 each manufacturer 
shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 
provide information identifying the vehicles (by make, model and 
vehicle identification number) that have been certified as complying 
with Standard No. 225. The manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a 
certified vehicle is irrevocable.


Sec.  585.35  Reporting requirements.

    (a) General reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end of 
the production years ending August 31, 2000, August 31, 2001, and 
August 31, 2002, each manufacturer shall submit a report to the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its 
compliance with the child restraint anchorage system requirements of 
Standard No. 225 for its passenger cars, trucks, buses, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles produced in that year. The report shall 
provide the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section and 
in Sec.  585.2 of this part.
    (b) Report content. (1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each 
manufacturer shall provide the number of passenger cars and trucks and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or less, and 
buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less manufactured for sale in the 
United States for each of the three previous production years, or, at 
the manufacturer's option, for the current production year. A new 
manufacturer that has not previously manufactured these vehicles for 
sale in the United States shall report the number of such vehicles 
manufactured during the current production year.
    (2) Production. (i) Each manufacturer shall report for the 
production year for which the report is filed, except for the 
production year ending August 31, 2005: the number of passenger cars 
and trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg 
or less, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less, that meet Standard 
No. 225.
    (ii) Each manufacturer shall report for the production year ending 
August 31, 2005: the number of passenger cars and trucks and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or less, and 
buses with a GWVR of 4,536 kg or less, that meet S6.3.1 and S9.4 of 
Standard No. 225.


Sec.  585.36  Records.

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle 
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is 
reported under Sec.  585.35(b)(2)(i) until December 31, 2004. Each 
manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle Identification 
Number for each vehicle for which information is reported under Sec.  
585.35(b)(2)(ii) until December 31, 2007.

Subpart E--Fuel System Integrity Phase-In Reporting Requirements


Sec.  585.41  Scope.

    This subpart establishes requirements for manufacturers of 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with 
a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less to respond to NHTSA inquiries, 
to submit reports, and to maintain records related to the reports, 
concerning the number of such vehicles that meet the upgraded 
requirements of Standard No. 301, Fuel systems integrity (49 CFR 
571.301).


Sec.  585.42  Purpose.

    The purpose of these requirements is to assist the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a manufacturer has 
complied with the upgraded requirements of Standard No. 301.

[[Page 70919]]

Sec.  585.43  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to manufacturers of passenger cars, 
multipurpose vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or 
less.


Sec.  585.44  Response to inquiries.

    During the production years ending August 31, 2007, August 31, 
2008, and August 31, 2009, each manufacturer shall, upon request from 
the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information 
identifying the vehicles (by make, model, and vehicle identification 
number) that have been certified as complying with the requirements of 
S6.2(b) of Standard No. 301. The manufacturer's designation of a 
vehicle as a certified vehicle is irrevocable.


Sec.  585.45  Reporting requirements.

    (a) General reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end of 
the production years ending August 31, 2007, August 31, 2008 and August 
31, 2009, each manufacturer shall submit a report to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its compliance with 
S6.2(b) of Standard No. 301 for its passenger cars, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of less than 4,536 kg 
produced in that year. Each report shall provide the information 
specified in paragraph (b) of this section and in section 585.2 of this 
part.
    (b) Report content. (1) Basis for statement of compliance. Each 
manufacturer shall provide the number of passenger cars, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less 
manufactured for sale in the United States for each of the three 
previous production years, or, at the manufacturer's option, for the 
previous production year. A new manufacturer that has not previously 
manufactured these vehicles for sale in the United States must report 
the number of such vehicles manufactured during the current production 
year.
    (2) Production. Each manufacturer shall report for the production 
year for which the report is filed the number of passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 
kg or less that meet S6.2(b) or S6.3(b) of Standard No. 301.


Sec.  585.46  Records.

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle 
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is 
reported under Sec.  585.45(b)(2) until December 31, 2010.

Subpart F--Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 Pounds or 
Less Phase-In Reporting Requirements


Sec.  585.51  Scope.

    This subpart establishes requirements for manufacturers of new 
pneumatic tires for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) 
or less to respond to NHTSA inquiries, to submit reports, and to 
maintain records related to the reports, concerning the number of such 
tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 139, New pneumatic 
tires for light vehicles (49 CFR 571.139).


Sec.  585.52  Purpose.

    The purpose of these requirements is to assist the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a manufacturer has 
complied with the requirements of Standard No. 139.


Sec.  585.53  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to manufacturers of tires for motor vehicles 
with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less.


Sec.  585.54  Response to inquiries.

    Each manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle 
Safety Compliance, provide information identifying the tires (by make, 
model, brand and tire identification number) that have been certified 
as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 139. The 
manufacturer's designation of a tire as a certified tire is 
irrevocable.


Sec.  585.55  Reporting requirements.

    (a) General reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end of 
the production years ending August 31, 2006 and August 31, 2007, each 
manufacturer shall submit a report to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration concerning its compliance with Standard No. 139 
for its tires produced in that year for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 
4,536 kg or less. Each report shall provide the information specified 
in paragraph (b) of this section and in section 585.2 of this part.
    (b) Report content. (1) Basis for statement of compliance. Each 
manufacturer shall provide the number of tires for motor vehicles with 
a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less manufactured for sale in the United States 
for each of the three previous production years, or, at the 
manufacturer's option, for the production year for which the report is 
filed. A new manufacturer that has not previously manufactured these 
tires for sale in the United States shall report the number of such 
tires manufactured during the current production year.
    (2) Production. Each manufacturer shall report for the production 
year for which the report is filed the number of new pneumatic tires 
for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less that meet Standard 
No. 139.


Sec.  585.56  Records.

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the tire identification 
number for each vehicle for which information is reported under Sec.  
585.55(b)(2) until December 31, 2008.

PART 586--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
7. Part 586 is removed and the part is reserved.

PART 589--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
8. Part 589 is removed and the part is reserved.

PART 590--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
9. Part 590 is removed and the part is reserved.

PART 596--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
10. Part 596 is removed and the part is reserved.

PART 597--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
11. Part 597 is removed and the part is reserved.

Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-26874 Filed 12-3-04; 3:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P