[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 9, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6777-6779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2469]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2004-18905; Notice 2]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This notice denies petitions for reconsideration submitted by 
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) of the August 20, 
2004, final rule on advanced air bag provisions in the occupant crash 
protection standard. We are denying the first petition because it 
references a test procedure that the agency has not yet proposed, for 
which an effective date will be proposed when a Lower Anchors and 
Tethers for Children (LATCH) seat installation procedure is published. 
We are denying the second petition because we have previously responded 
to the same issue and no new data have been presented.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Louis Molino, 
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202) 493-
2739. For legal issues: Christopher Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel, 
at (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820. You may send mail to these 
officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
    A. Effective Date Revision--Appendix A
    B. Future Appendix A Revisions
III. Response to Petitions
    A. Effective Date Revision--Appendix A
    B. Future Appendix A Revisions
IV. Conclusion

I. Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant 
crash protection, specifies performance requirements for the protection 
of vehicle occupants in crashes (49 CFR 571.208). On May 12, 2000, we 
published an interim final rule that amended FMVSS No. 208 to require 
advanced air bags (65 FR 30680; Docket No. NHTSA 00-7013; Notice 1) 
(Advanced Air Bag Rule). Among other things, the rule addressed the 
risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, particularly for small women 
and young children, and amended FMVSS No. 208 to require that future 
air bags be designed to minimize such risk. The Advanced Air Bag Rule 
established a rigid barrier crash test with a 5th percentile adult 
female test dummy, as well as several low risk deployment and out-of-
position (OOP) tests using a range of dummy sizes and a number of 
specified child restraint systems (CRSs).
    The agency received multiple petitions for reconsideration to the 
Advanced Air Bag Rule. Petitioners raised a large number of concerns 
about the various test procedures in their written submissions. To 
address these issues adequately, the agency held a technical workshop 
so that we could better understand the specific concerns and better 
determine if the test procedures needed refinement.\1\ The

[[Page 6778]]

agency then addressed each petition in a Federal Register notice 
published on December 18, 2001, and made several changes to the 
Advanced Air Bag Rule (66 FR 65376; Docket No. NHTSA 01-11110). These 
changes included a number of refinements to the test dummy positioning 
procedures in the barrier tests and the low risk deployment tests. The 
December 2001 final rule also amended the list of CRSs contained in 
Appendix A by removing from the list CRSs no longer in production, and 
adding other CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The workshop was held on December 6, 2000, at NHTSA's 
Vehicle Research and Test Center in East Liberty, Ohio. 
Representatives of 18 vehicle manufacturers and 13 seat, sensor, and 
dummy manufacturers attended the workshop. Five different vehicles 
were used as test vehicles. Some of the five had been provided by 
manufacturers because they were experiencing particular problems 
with the existing test procedures in those vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 19, 2003, the agency published a final rule that 
responded, in part, to petitions for reconsideration of the amendments 
made in the December 2001 final rule (68 FR 65179; Docket No. NHTSA 03-
16476, Notice 1). Various seat and dummy positioning procedures were 
amended. The November 19, 2003, final rule also amended the list of 
CRSs in Appendix A. Specifically, effective September 1, 2004, we 
removed three rear-facing CRSs from Subpart B of the appendix and added 
two LATCH compliant CRSs to Subpart C. The preamble to the final rule 
also addressed the issue of lead time for changes to Appendix A.
    On August 20, 2004, the agency published a final rule that 
responded to petitions for reconsideration of the amendments made in 
the November 19, 2003, final rule (69 FR 51598; Docket No. NHTSA 04-
18905). The majority of the petitions were denied. However, we 
clarified two detailed points related to dummy positioning in OOP tests 
and extended the effective date for the LATCH seats added to Appendix A 
to September 1, 2006.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

A. Effective Date Revision--Appendix A

    The Alliance petitioned ``NHTSA to provide at least 1-year of lead 
time between the issuance of a compliance test procedure and the 
effective date of changes to Appendix A that would add child restraints 
equipped with LATCH lower attachments.'' While the Alliance strongly 
supports the development of a procedure for the installation of LATCH 
seats, as stated in the Alliance petition on the November 19, 2003, 
final rule, it contended that ``artificially tight installations of 
LATCH equipped child restraints in a compliance test could cause some 
occupant classification systems to misclassify the child restraint (but 
not in typical real-world usage).'' The petition stated that ``vehicle 
manufacturers and their suppliers need substantial lead-time to 
evaluate their systems and potentially redesign and incorporate into 
production suppression systems that can meet the test procedures that 
are to be developed.''

B. Future Appendix A Revisions

    In addition, the Alliance petitioned NHTSA to provide at least two 
years of lead time for any future revisions to Appendix A. The Alliance 
expects that there will be a major update of the Appendix to add many 
LATCH-equipped CRSs. The Alliance stated that ``at least 2-years of 
lead time would help vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers to 
design and develop suppression systems that will meet the LATCH 
compliance test procedures that are to be developed.''

III. Response to Petitions

A. Effective Date Revision--Appendix A

    We are denying the Alliance petition for one year of lead time 
between the issuance of a LATCH CRS installation compliance test 
procedure and the effective date of changes to Appendix A that would 
add CRSs equipped with LATCH lower attachments. In the August 20, 2004, 
final rule (69 FR 51598) the agency stated:

    To ensure the robustness of automatic suppression systems, a 
manufacturer must be able to certify that the system operates under 
conditions representative of real world use. This includes operation 
when used with CRS designs that have been sold for almost two years. 
However, as the Alliance noted, the agency does not yet have a 
compliance test procedure in place for testing seats installed by 
means of the LATCH anchorages. Therefore, the effective date for the 
LATCH equipped CRSs in Appendix A is extended until September 1, 
2006. By that time, the agency will have developed a compliance test 
procedure for securing a LATCH-equipped CRS to a vehicle using the 
lower anchor attachments.

    We are denying the petition because it presupposes that the agency 
will not publish a test procedure in a time sufficient to allow ample 
notice and lead time. When the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for 
the LATCH procedure is issued, the agency will have an opportunity to 
propose an effective date of the procedure or of the CRSs to which the 
procedure would apply. To do this in advance of the NPRM publication is 
premature.

B. Future Appendix A Revisions

    We are also denying the Alliance petition to provide at least two 
years of lead time for any future proposed revisions to Appendix A. In 
the December 18, 2001, final rule we noted that, generally, a 1-year 
lead time will be provided for amendments to Appendix A, but stressed 
the importance of establishing a list that is representative of real 
world usage (66 FR 65390). In response to the December 18, 2001, final 
rule, Mitsubishi petitioned the agency for a 2-year lead time for 
additions to Appendix A. In the preamble to the November 19, 2003, 
final rule the agency provided an extensive discussion of the lead time 
for additions to Appendix A (68 FR 65188).

    Additionally, the one year lead time is consistent with the 
agency's intent that occupant detection systems be robust and able 
to detect any CRS, including those that are relatively new to the 
market. However, in recognition that manufacturers need to know what 
CRSs will be included as they design their new models, we have 
decided to slightly change our position on lead time by making any 
changes to Appendix A effective for the next model year introduced 
one year after publication of the final rule modifying Appendix A. 
(Consistent with our past practice, for this purpose, the model year 
begins on September 1 of the prior calendar year.) This will result 
in a one to two year lead time. For example, if Appendix A were 
updated March 1, 2004, the revised appendix would become effective 
September 1, 2005, a period of eighteen months after publication. We 
believe this approach will allow manufacturers to tie their 
certification to the automatic suppression requirements with the 
introduction of a new model year.

    Therefore, the agency has committed to providing at least one year 
of lead time, plus any additional time up to the next September 1st, so 
as to have the requirements to assure compliance using the new CRSs 
become effective at the beginning of a model year. The current petition 
for reconsideration for two years of lead time provides no new 
information that would cause the agency to reconsider our position on 
this issue.

IV. Conclusion

    NHTSA received two petitions for reconsideration to the August 20, 
2004, FMVSS No. 208 final rule from the Alliance. The Alliance 
requested that any lead time between the issuance of a compliance test 
procedure to install LATCH seats and the effective date of changes to 
Appendix A be at least one year. They further requested a two year lead 
time for any future revision to Appendix A. We are denying these 
petitions.
    The first petition is denied as premature, since the agency can and 
will propose an appropriate lead time when the LATCH test procedure is 
published. The second petition is denied because NHTSA addressed the 
exact same issue in the preamble to the November 19, 2003, final rule, 
and no new data have been presented that

[[Page 6779]]

would lead us to change our previous determination.

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

    Issued on: February 3, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-2469 Filed 2-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P