[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 178 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52939-52942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21026]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0149]
RIN 2127-AK25
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to remove the sunset of a requirement in
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash
protection,'' that a vehicle's lap belt must be lockable to tightly
secure a child restraint system. Under FMVSS No. 208, the requirement
ceases to apply to designated seating positions that are equipped with
a child restraint anchorage system on vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2012. This NPRM proposes to amend the standard such that
the requirement will continue to apply after September 1, 2012, even
when a child restraint anchorage system is present. Data indicate that
motorists are still using vehicle belts to attach child restraint
systems to a large degree, so the agency is seeking to ensure that lap
belts continue to be lockable in vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2012.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the
Docket receives them not later than November 12, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID
Number above) by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carla Cuentas, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, Light Duty Vehicle Division (telephone 202-
366-4583, fax 202-493-2739). For legal issues, contact Ms. Deirdre
Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (telephone 202-366-2992, fax 202-366-
3820). You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 5, 1999, NHTSA published a final rule establishing Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, ``Child restraint
anchorage systems'' (49 CFR 571.225) (64 FR 10786; Docket No. 98-3390,
Notice 2). The final rule required motor vehicle manufacturers to
install ``LATCH'' child restraint anchorage systems in their
vehicles,\1\ and required child restraint manufacturers to attach
components to child restraints that enable the child restraint to
connect to a LATCH system on a vehicle.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``LATCH'' stands for ``Lower Anchors and Tethers for
Children,'' a term that was developed by child restraint
manufacturers and retailers to refer to the standardized child
restraint anchorage system required to be installed in vehicles by
FMVSS No. 225. The LATCH system is comprised of two lower anchorages
and one top tether anchorage. Each lower anchorage includes a rigid
round rod or bar onto which the connector of a child restraint
system can be attached. The bars are located at the intersection of
the vehicle seat cushion and seat back. The top tether anchorage is
a fixture to which the tether of a child restraint system can be
hooked. FMVSS No. 225 required the 3-point LATCH system at two rear
seating positions, and a top tether anchorage at a third rear
seating position when a third rear seating position is provided in
the vehicle.
\2\ The final rule amended FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint
systems'' (49 CFR 571.213), to require the components on the child
restraints, and to set performance requirements that child
restraints must meet when attached to a vehicle seat assembly using
the LATCH system. The requirements applied to child restraints
manufactured on or after September 1, 2002. (This document uses the
term ``LATCH-equipped'' to refer to a child restraint system
equipped with the components that attach to a vehicle's LATCH
system.) In addition, the rule required all child restraints to
continue to be capable of being attached to a vehicle by way of the
vehicle's belt system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule also amended FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash
protection'' (49 CFR 571.208), by rescinding the ``lockability''
requirement for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2012,
with respect to vehicle seating positions that are equipped with a
LATCH system. FMVSS No. 208 requires passenger vehicles to be equipped
with seat belts and frontal air bags for the protection of vehicle
occupants in crashes. Since September 1995, the standard requires the
lap belt to be lockable to tightly secure child restraint systems,
without the need to attach a locking clip \3\ or any other device to
the vehicle's seat belt webbing. This requirement, in S7.1.1.5 of FMVSS
No. 208, is called the ``lockability'' requirement.\4\ A lockable lap
belt is best for securing CRSs if seat belts must be used because it
cinches the seat belt tightly and thus allows for a more secure
installation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A locking clip is a flat H-shaped metal clip intended to
fasten together belt webbing (lap and shoulder portion) at a sliding
latch plate, to prevent the webbing from sliding through.
\4\ The procedure for demonstrating compliance with the
lockability requirement is in S7.1.1.5(c) of FMVSS No. 208. The
lockability requirement applies to vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 208 requires vehicles to be equipped with an emergency
locking retractor (ELR) for Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assemblies.
An ELR is a seat belt retractor that locks only in response to the
rapid deceleration of the vehicle or rapid spooling out of the seat
belt webbing from the retractor, and increases the comfort of the seat
belt assembly as compared to an automatic locking retractor (ALR).\5\
To meet the
[[Page 52940]]
lockability requirement, vehicle manufacturers commonly use a
switchable seat belt retractor (``ELR/ALR'') that can be converted from
an ELR to an ALR. The retractor is converted from an ELR to an ALR by
slowly pulling all of the webbing out of the retractor and then letting
the retractor wind the webbing back up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ An ALR is a seat belt retractor that locks when the
continuous motion of spooling the belt out is stopped. From that
point, the seat belt cannot be pulled out further without first
letting the belt retract into the retractor housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While switchable seat belt retractors and other devices used to
lock the lap belts enable child restraints to be installed without use
of a locking clip, motorists still found installation of child
restraints using a lockable seat belt to be difficult.\6\ NHTSA
required LATCH so that motorists could use the LATCH system instead of
the lockable seat belt to install child restraints. Since the LATCH
system was to replace the vehicle belt system as the means of
installing child restraints, the agency believed there would be a time
when lockable lap belts would no longer be needed at vehicle seating
positions equipped with LATCH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Even with lockability, the vehicle belt system still
depended on the user knowing enough and making the effort to
manipulate the belt system. Also, the vehicle belt must be routed
correctly through the child restraint, which may not be an easy task
in all cases. Further, the lockability requirement did not address
the effects of forward-mounted seat belt anchorages on slightly
reduced child restraint effectiveness. 64 FR at 10792.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That time was estimated to be in 2012 (64 FR at 10804). In 1999,
NHTSA believed that all child restraints ``in use'' would be LATCH-
equipped by September 1, 2012, since new child restraints would have
then been subject to the requirement to be LATCH-equipped for ten
years. We believed that by 2012, child restraints in use would be using
the LATCH system and not a lockable vehicle seat belt to attach to the
vehicle seat, and so the lockability requirement would no longer be
needed in positions with LATCH. Accordingly, the LATCH final rule
rescinded the lockability requirement for those positions, in vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2012.
II. Current Information Indicates Need for Lockability
Notwithstanding the agency's projections in 1999, current
information available to NHTSA indicates a need to retain the
lockability requirement of FMVSS No. 208. Current data indicate that
many motorists are continuing to use the vehicle's belt system to
install child restraints, even when attaching a LATCH-equipped child
restraint. To assess consumer response to LATCH, NHTSA conducted a
survey \7\ from April to October 2005 on the types of restraint systems
being used to keep children safe while riding in passenger vehicles,
i.e., whether drivers of vehicles with LATCH were using LATCH to secure
their LATCH-equipped child restraints to the vehicle, and if so,
whether they were properly installing the restraints. The survey found
that in 13 percent of the LATCH-equipped vehicles in which there was a
child restraint, the restraint was placed in a seat position not
equipped with lower anchors (the vehicle seat belt was used to secure
the restraint to the vehicle). Among the 87 percent who placed the
child restraint at a position equipped with lower anchors, only 60
percent used the lower attachments to secure the restraint to the
vehicle.\8\ While the LATCH survey found that consumers who have
experience with LATCH like the system and that LATCH is helping to
reduce the insecure installation of child restraints, the report also
indicated that proper use of LATCH is not inherently evident to
parents. Many parents do not use LATCH; they may not know about it or
understand its importance, or may have difficulties using it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Decina, L.E., Lococo, K.H., and Doyle, C.T., Child Restraint
Use Survey: LATCH Use and Misuse, DOT HS 810 679, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 2006. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Communication%20&%20Consumer%20Information/Articles/Associated%20Files/LATCH_Report_12-2006.pdf
\8\ Of the child restraints located in a seating position
equipped with an upper tether anchor, 55 percent were attached to
the vehicle using the upper tether. 61 percent of upper tether
nonusers and 55 percent of lower attachment nonusers cited their
lack of knowledge--not knowing what the anchorages were, that they
were available in the vehicle, the importance of using them, or how
to use them properly--as the reason for not using them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the findings of the LATCH survey, we are reassessing
the assumption made in the 1999 LATCH final rule that by 2012 LATCH
will replace seat belts as the means of attaching child restraints. The
agency held a February 8, 2007, public meeting discussing the LATCH
survey and related issues,\9\ including whether the lockability
requirement should be retained given the survey results showing that
vehicle belts are still being widely used to attach child restraints.
In response to the LATCH survey and as discussed at the public meeting,
NHTSA has initiated a comprehensive consumer education campaign about
LATCH. However, since the LATCH survey indicated that consumers are
drawn to using the vehicle seat belt system to attach child restraints
even when LATCH is available, we tentatively conclude that the
lockability requirement should not sunset in 2012 as scheduled. We
tentatively conclude that for consumers who use the lap/shoulder belts,
the belt system should be made as easy-to-use as reasonably possible in
attaching their child restraints, and that extending the lockability
requirement is the most reasonable way to make the belt system easy-to-
use.\10\ We are issuing this NPRM to propose keeping the lockability
requirement in effect past September 1, 2012, and to provide notice to
vehicle manufacturers that the lockability requirement might not sunset
in 2012 and that product plans may have to be adjusted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 72 FR 3103; Docket NHTSA-2007-26833. Following up on the
findings of the LATCH survey, NHTSA held the public meeting to bring
together child restraint and vehicle manufacturers, retailers,
technicians, researchers and consumer groups to discuss ways to
improve the design and increase the use of child restraint systems.
The meeting focused on improving LATCH system designs and educating
the public about LATCH. A transcript of the meeting can be found in
Docket No. NHTSA-07-26833-025. See page 28 of meeting transcript.
\10\ We do not believe that a viable alternative to lockable lap
belts is a return to locking clips. When locking clips were
prevalent (before the lockability requirement) a study found that
locking clips were misused or not used in 72% of the cases observed.
NHTSA, Observed Patterns of Misuse of Child Safety Seats, Traffic
Tech, No. 133, Washington, DC, September 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This decision to proceed with an NPRM is supported by other
information received by the agency. On January 22, 2007, SafetyBeltSafe
U.S.A. (SafetyBeltSafe) and Safe Ride News petitioned the agency to
remove the sunset clause in the lockability requirement.\11\ The
petitioners believed that rescission of the requirement in 2012 could
have ``deleterious effects on the safety of children.'' According to
the petitioners, parents and caregivers of special needs children would
like the continuation of the lockability requirement because the belt
provides a way of restraining children who find it difficult to sit
still or upright. According to the petitioners, the parents and
caregivers believe that the lockability feature of lap belts prevents
these children from manipulating the seat belt or introducing slack
into the belt. The petitioners also stated there are child restraints
recommended for children weighing more than 40 pounds and that a
lockable lap belt is needed to secure these systems to the vehicle,
because such a child restraint may exceed a maximum 40 to 48 pound
weight limit for LATCH set by some vehicle manufacturers.
SafetyBeltSafe and Safe Ride News also believed that the lockability
feature of ELR/ALR retractors can be used to lock the unused belt when
the CRS is anchored with LATCH so that children cannot
[[Page 52941]]
pull the shoulder portion of the belt out and play with it
inappropriately (e.g., wrapping it around the neck and activating the
retractor unintentionally). The petitioners also stated that a lockable
lap belt could be used where the vehicle LATCH anchorage locations are
not compatible with the child restraint (i.e., where the anchorages are
deep in the seat cushion or above the seat bight).\12\ The agency
granted the petition on June 20, 2007. Several comments made in the
context of the February 8, 2007, public meeting also supported
retaining the lockability requirement past September 1, 2012 (Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety, NHTSA-2006-26735-0003; Ms. Julie Robbins,
Chicco USA, transcript page 219 of the transcript, supra.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A ``Supporters of Lockability Petition'' signed by 177
supporters was attached to the petition.
\12\ The petitioners also suggested that the lockability feature
of lap belts can be used for purposes such as restraining equipment
or other objects to the vehicle seat or restraining arrestees
transported in police vehicles. The agency is not issuing this NPRM
based on those suggestions. The petition also argued that in vehicle
rear seats with three designated seating positions (three sets of
lap/shoulder belts) and only two seats of LATCH, manufacturers might
move lower anchors inboard ``to lessen exposure to intrusion in side
impacts.'' The petitioners believed that in such a vehicle, to
accommodate three child restraints in the rear seat the belts would
have to be used and thus lockability needed. No data was presented
to support the supposition that LATCH anchors might move inboard or
on the frequency of the occurrence of the described situation (three
child restraints simultaneously accommodated in the second row
seat). The agency does not consider this suggestion as a petition
for rulemaking or as part of the petition for rulemaking addressed
by this NPRM.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Proposed Effective Date
NHTSA proposes that a final rule on this rulemaking, assuming one
is issued, would be effective 120 days after publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. The effective date is the date on which the
Federal Register would be amended to reflect the changes made by the
final rule.
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). This NPRM proposes to
remove the sunset of a requirement which is currently in effect. The
agency is seeking to ensure that lap belts continue to be lockable in
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2012. The rulemaking
would not affect current costs of manufacturing lap belt systems. The
minimal impacts of today's amendment do not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities.
I hereby certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The NPRM would affect
motor vehicle manufacturers, multistage manufacturers and alterers, but
the entities that qualify as small businesses would not be
significantly affected by this rulemaking because they are already
required to comply with the lockability requirements and have been
since 1995. This NPRM proposes to remove the sunset of the requirement
to ensure that lap belts continue to be lockable in vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2012. The rulemaking would not
affect current costs of manufacturing lap belt systems.
Executive Order 13132
NHTSA has examined today's NPRM pursuant to Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have federalism implications because a final
rule, if issued, would not have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.''
Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's rulemaking. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at
least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act contains an express preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle
safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political
subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard
applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the
standard prescribed under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is
this statutory command that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking,
so consultation would be inappropriate.
Second, in addition to the express preemption noted above, the
Supreme Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on
motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort
law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a
NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861
(2000). NHTSA has not discerned any conflict in today's rulemaking.
However, in part because such conflicts can arise in varied contexts,
the agency cannot rule out the possibility that such a conflict may
become clear through subsequent experience with the proposed standard
and test regime. NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if
warranted. See Id. at 883-86.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by 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 NPRM would not establish any new information
collection requirements.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' There are no voluntary consensus standards
pertaining to the lockability requirements addressed today.
Civil Justice Reform
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden
[[Page 52942]]
reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)
adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued
by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that
requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This NPRM would not
result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million annually.
Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 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. This rulemaking is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as
defined in E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is
not subject to E.O. 13211.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.
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.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as set forth below.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.208 is amended by:
A. Revising the introductory paragraph of S7.1.1.5, and
B. Removing S7.1.1.5(d).
The amendments read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
* * * * *
S7.1.1.5 Passenger cars, and trucks, buses, and multipurpose
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less
manufactured on or after September 1, 1995 shall meet the requirements
of S7.1.1.5(a), S7.1.1.5(b) and S7.1.1.5(c).
* * * * *
Issued on September 5, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-21026 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P