[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17144-17159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-06614]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2026-0727]
RIN 2127-AM80
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash
Protection, Seat Belt Reminder Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim final rule amends the seat belt warning
requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
``Occupant crash protection'' in response to petitions for
reconsideration of the January 2025 final rule. This interim final rule
delays the compliance dates and makes technical clarifications to the
regulatory text. NHTSA denies the remainder of the requests. Though
these amendments are effective immediately, to benefit from comments
interested parties and the public may have, NHTSA requests that any
comments be submitted to the docket for this rule. Following the close
of the comment period, NHTSA will publish a final rule responding to
any comments received and making any appropriate changes to the interim
final rule.
[[Page 17145]]
DATES: This interim final rule is effective April 6, 2026. Comments
concerning this document are due no later than May 21, 2026. The
compliance date of this interim final rule is September 1, 2028, with
optional early compliance permitted. Multi-stage manufacturers and
alterers have an additional year to comply.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments electronically to the docket
identified in the heading of this document by visiting the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, you can file comments using the following methods:
Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Suite W58-
213, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except on Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call (202) 366-9826 or (202) 366-9317 before coming.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. 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 https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets via internet.
Confidential Business Information: If you claim that any of the
information in your comment (including any additional documents or
attachments) constitutes confidential business information within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) or is protected from disclosure pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1905, please see the detailed instructions given under the
Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document.
Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under the
Regulatory Analyses section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Ms. Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness Standards
([email protected]; facsimile: (202) 493-2739). For legal issues, you
may contact Mr. John Piazza, Office of Chief Counsel
([email protected]). You can reach these officials by phone at 202-
366-1810. Address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
III. Response to Petitions
a. Lead Time
b. Front Seat Belt First-Phase Audible Warning Duration
Requirement
c. Visibility of Rear Seat Belt Visual Warning in Vehicles With
No Driver's Designated Seating Position
d. Front Seat Belt Audible Warning Trigger Requirement
e. Rear Seat Belt Warning System Occupancy Criteria
f. Rear Seat Change-Of-Status Warning Requirement for Two-Door
Vehicles
g. Telltales Associated With Multiple Front Outboard Seats
IV. Basis for Issuing an Interim Final Rule Effective Immediately
V. Request for Comment
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VII. Public Participation
I. Background
On January 3, 2025, NHTSA published a final rule (90 FR 390) that
amended the seat belt warning system provisions in FMVSS No. 208,
``Occupant crash protection.'' The final rule followed a 2023 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).\1\ The final rule had two main components.
The first required a seat belt warning for the rear seats. The second
updated and enhanced the current seat belt warning requirements for the
driver's seat belt and extended those requirements to the front
outboard passenger seat. The rule completed NHTSA's response to a
mandate in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-
21) \2\ that directed NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking to require a seat
belt warning for the rear seats in motor vehicles; it also completed
NHTSA's action on a rulemaking petition from Public Citizen and
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety for the same rule. The final rule
applies (with some exceptions) to passenger cars, trucks, most buses,
and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 88 FR 61674 (Sept. 7, 2023).
\2\ Public Law 112-141 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule established a compliance date for the amendments as
follows. Covered vehicles must comply with the front seat belt warning
system requirements by September 1, 2026, and the rear seat belt
warning system requirements by September 1, 2027, with optional early
compliance permitted. Consistent with 49 CFR 571.8(b), multi-stage
manufacturers and alterers have an additional year to comply.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
NHTSA regulations allow any interested person to petition the
Administrator for reconsideration of a rule.\3\ Under NHTSA's
regulations, petitions for reconsideration must explain why compliance
with the rule is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the
public interest. Petitions must be received within 45 days of the
publication of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 49 CFR 553.35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the final rule from
IEE Sensing Inc. (IEE); \4\ the Alliance for Automotive Innovation
(Auto Innovators); \5\ Volkswagen Group of America (Volkswagen); \6\
and the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association (AVIA).\7\ Volkswagen
supported Auto Innovators' petition. Auto Innovators also submitted
supplemental information to NHTSA.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0071-0007.
\5\ Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0071-0006.
\6\ Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0071-0004.
\7\ Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0071-0005.
\8\ Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0071-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, the issues raised by the petitioners are of two types.
Auto Innovators and Volkswagen asked NHTSA to delay the compliance date
for the requirements, and all petitioners requested revisions or
clarifications of certain aspects of the rule. These requests and
NHTSA's responses are discussed below.
III. Response to Petitions
a. Lead time
The final rule established a compliance date of September 1, 2026
for the front seat belt warning system requirements and September 1,
2027 for the rear seat belt warning system requirements, with optional
early compliance. Consistent with 49 CFR 571.8(b), multi-stage
manufacturers and alterers were given an additional year to comply.
Comments on the NPRM regarding lead time were mixed. Auto
Innovators and other industry commenters requested additional lead
time. For example, Auto Innovators, Ford, and
[[Page 17146]]
Honda requested a synchronized two-year phase-in for both the front and
rear row seating position requirements that begins three years after
publication of the final rule. On the other hand, other commenters
requested less lead time. For example, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) and Public Citizen stated that one year should be
sufficient for rear systems, noting that the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) testing has demonstrated that this deadline is
achievable and that delaying will cost lives.
Reconsideration Requests
Auto Innovators requested that the agency delay the start date for
the front seat belt warning system requirements to September 1, 2027,
and delay the start date for the rear seat belt warning system
requirements to September 1, 2028. With respect to the requirements for
the front seat belts, Auto Innovators stated that implementing the rule
will require significant hardware and software changes to support
occupant detection, possible modifications to the instrument panel for
the visual warnings, and changes to account for the audible warning
requirements. It also argued that the increased complexity of the test
procedures will require time and resource-intensive design,
development, and validation. Auto Innovators cited similar concerns
with respect to meeting the rear seat belt reminder system
requirements, such as solving design challenges associated with folding
or removable seats and developing a change-of-status audible warning.
Auto Innovators also commented that implementing changes such as those
required by the final rule to vehicles that have already completed
development, or are in the late stages of development, is highly
disruptive, and that it may not be possible for Tier 1 suppliers to
meet the updated timelines. Volkswagen supported Auto Innovators'
petition.
In its supplemental submission, Auto Innovators provided additional
information based on a survey it conducted of its members to better
understand the impact of the final rule based on the current lead time.
Based on the survey, it identified that the most significant compliance
challenges posed by the final rule stem from the need to either
redesign the instrument panel to accommodate the requirements of the
rule (for the front and rear seats) or redesign existing seat belt
reminder systems that were voluntarily installed. Auto Innovators
stated that some manufacturers reported already incurring costs because
of the current lead time, but because manufacturers are still in the
process of adjusting their production schedules to meet the final rule,
it is not possible to assess what the overall cost impact will be.
Further, Auto Innovators stated that while cost is a factor, its
members were more concerned with the practicability of making late-
stage design changes (specifically, about not having enough time to
test software for bugs or unintended consequences), and that
unpredictable results during validation could require launch delays or
even cancellations. Auto Innovators stated that while manufacturers
typically require between 24 and 36 months to validate a new software
rollout on one model, the final rule allows only 15 months to validate
new software on all makes/models, which will be difficult-to-impossible
to accomplish. It further stated that ``[t]here seems to be strong
consensus among our members that delays will happen, but the actual
volume, or the models at risk, are unknown until the software/hardware
validation is finished.''
Auto Innovators also requested that the agency implement a two-year
phase-in of the front seat belt warning requirements if NHTSA does not
adopt Auto Innovators' requested changes to those requirements.\9\
Specifically, Auto Innovators requested a two-year phase-in under which
50 percent of covered vehicles would comply beginning on September 1,
2027, and 100 percent of covered vehicles would comply by September 1,
2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Those requested changes are discussed in Section III.g.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
On consideration of the petitions and additional information
submitted to NHTSA, NHTSA concludes that Auto Innovators' arguments for
delaying the compliance dates have merit. In response to Auto
Innovators' request to amend the front seat belt visual warning
requirements (see Section III.g.), NHTSA is extending the compliance
date for the front seat belt warning requirements to 2028. Instead of
specifying the phase-in requested by Auto Innovators, NHTSA is unifying
the compliance dates for the front and rear requirements, so that full
compliance with the front and rear seat belt warning requirements will
need to be met by September 1, 2028. Taking into account typical design
cycles, the necessary adjustments to existing systems, and the
implementation of a rear seat belt warning system in some vehicles,
NHTSA concludes the burden on manufacturers is extensive enough to
warrant such a delay and unification of the compliance dates.
The change in lead time provides regulatory relief and addresses a
potential economic disruption to the light vehicle market based on new
information not available at the time that the Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis (FRIA) was developed in support of the 2025 final rule.
Based on the information submitted to NHTSA, light vehicle
manufacturers are facing challenges in ensuring full compliance with
the requirements of the 2025 final rule within the current lead time.
The challenges faced by light vehicle manufacturers are based on the
time needed to validate their systems, to redesign instrument panels,
and to redesign current voluntarily-installed systems to meet the
requirements for all models. As a result of these challenges, light
vehicle manufacturers who are working towards meeting the requirements
of the 2025 final rule within the current lead time would likely incur
greater costs than were estimated in the FRIA and still potentially
face noncompliance. NHTSA has developed a Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) in support of this interim final rule, included in the docket for
this rulemaking, that provides an assessment of the benefits and costs
associated with the rule. The assessment is based on available data,
and NHTSA requests comments on potential costs and benefits not
reflected in those estimates.
The RIA takes into account new information that indicates light
vehicle manufacturers are facing challenges in ensuring full compliance
across their entire fleet under the given lead time. To ensure full
compliance within the current lead time, light vehicle manufacturers
may incur additional costs associated with conducting validation tests
in an expedited manner and potential late-stage design changes. Given
any uncertainty in meeting the requirements, vehicle manufacturers are
faced with the decision to either move forward in an effort to meet the
requirements and take on additional costs or delay the production of
that vehicle until they can ensure it would meet the requirements.
NHTSA believes that these decisions have already been made for MY2027
and MY2028, which would be produced during the extension in lead time.
In addition, as the compliance dates of the 2025 SBWS final rule grow
closer, any deviation from those current production plans would become
increasingly costly or even infeasible.
Due to limitations, NHTSA is unable to quantify benefits and costs
under the baseline and, therefore, is unable to estimate the
incremental benefits and
[[Page 17147]]
costs under the IFR. More specifically, NHTSA is unable to establish
which makes and models would face challenges in meeting the
requirements, assess the total number of vehicles impacted, how
manufacturers would operate in facing those challenges, and the
resulting impacts on consumers, safety outcomes, and the light vehicle
market as a whole. As a result of these limitations, NHTSA discusses
the benefits and costs qualitatively and assesses the overall impacts
of this IFR based on the plausible range of outcomes.
For those vehicles that can meet the requirements under the current
lead time, with or without additional costs, the extension in lead time
would have no impact on benefits or costs. For those vehicles that
would not be able to meet the requirements under the current lead time,
regardless of cost, the extension in lead time provides regulatory
relief that may result in cost savings. These cost savings would result
from the case that, in absence of the extension in lead time,
manufacturers would continue to dedicate resources and costs towards
testing and validating these systems under a timeline that was not
feasible.
Overall, the extension in lead time provides enough time for
vehicle manufacturers to operate in a manner that ensures that they can
achieve compliance with the requirements with potential cost savings.
Therefore, on net, the extension in lead time provided by IFR would be
beneficial to society.
b. Front Seat Belt First-Phase Audible Warning Duration Requirement
The final rule regulatory text in S7.5(b)(2)(ii) states that the
first phase audible warning for the front seats ``. . . must continue
for 30 seconds, until the seat belt that triggered the warning is in
use, until the seat is no longer occupied, or until the second-phase
warning activates, whichever comes first.''
Reconsideration Request
Volkswagen noted that this language is different than that used in
the rear seat change-of-status warning requirement which specifies that
the warning must last ``at least 30 seconds.'' However, Volkswagen also
noted that there were several references in the preamble of the final
rule that indicate the first phase audible warning must last for ``at
least'' 30 seconds, suggesting that it was not NHTSA's intent to limit
the warning to 30 seconds. Volkswagen therefore requested changing the
regulatory text to ``at least 30 seconds.''
Agency Response
Volkswagen is correct that it was not NHTSA's intent to limit the
front seat belt first-phase audible warning to 30 seconds. This interim
final rule revises the regulatory text to clarify this. NHTSA seeks
comment on this clarification.
c. Visibility of Rear Seat Belt Visual Warning in Vehicles With No
Driver's Designated Seating Position
The final rule requires that the rear seat belt visual warning must
be visible from the driver's seat \10\ and does not include any
provisions applicable to vehicles equipped with an Automated Driving
System (ADS). The final rule does, however, include visibility
requirements for the front seat belt warning specifically tailored to
ADS-equipped vehicles. Specifically, the final rule requires that for
dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles that still have a driver's seat, the
visual warning for the front outboard passenger seat belt must be
visible from the front outboard passenger seat. For ADS vehicles
without a driver's seating position, the final rule requires that the
visual warning for each outboard designated seating position be visible
from each outboard passenger seating position (i.e., the visual warning
for the outboard seat on the left must be visible from both the left
and right outboard seats, and same for the outboard seat on the right).
In the final rule NHTSA stated that the visibility of rear seat belt
warnings for ADS-equipped vehicles was outside the scope of the rule
and noted that research was underway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ S7.5(c)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reconsideration Request
AVIA disagreed that such research is necessary or that rear seat
belt warnings for ADS-dedicated vehicles should be out of scope
(regardless of seating configuration). AVIA petitioned NHTSA to modify
the final rule to require that, in the absence of a driver's designated
seating position, all rear outboard visual warnings should be visible
to each front outboard seating position.
Agency Response
NHTSA is denying this request. NHTSA continues to believe that the
visibility of the rear seat belt warnings for ADS-equipped vehicles is
out of scope of the rule, and continues to research this issue to
determine the most effective implementation of telltales and warnings
for ADS-equipped vehicles. While AVIA's proposed modification would
provide consistency in the visual warning requirements for front and
rear designated seating positions, we note that the use cases for front
row and rear row occupancy in vehicles without a driver's designated
seating position may differ from those with a driver's designated
seating position and are not yet well-defined. For example, in a
rideshare vehicle there may be cases where only the rear seats are
occupied, and a visual warning visible to each front outboard seating
position may not be visible to the rear seat occupants. Thus, such a
warning would be ineffective. Similarly, there may be cases where the
vehicle occupants of a rideshare vehicle do not know each other, thus
when the front outboard seat occupants are presented visual warnings
related to rear seat belt usage, they may not feel compelled to act.
Effective implementation of the visual warnings in vehicles with
unconventional seating (and other related considerations, such as bi-
directional vehicles) would also need to be taken into consideration.
NHTSA plans to issue a separate rulemaking document that will focus on
telltales and warnings for ADS-equipped vehicles.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202410&RIN=2127-AM07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, we note that manufacturers of ADS-equipped vehicles, in
complying with the front seat belt visual warning requirement for
vehicles without a driver's designated seating position
(S7.5(b)(1)(iii)) by locating the visual warnings for each front
outboard passenger designated seating position such that they are
visible from each front outboard passenger designated seating position,
may choose to locate the visual warnings for the rear seat designated
seating positions in the same location. NHTSA has considered this issue
and determined that the final regulatory text would not prohibit such
an implementation.
Manufacturers of ADS-equipped vehicles without a driver's
designated seating position can petition the agency for an exemption
from S7.5(c)(3)(ii), provided that an alternate approach to effective
communication of rear seat belt warnings to the rear seat occupants is
implemented.
d. Front Seat Belt Audible Warning Trigger Requirement
The final rule requires that the front seat belt first-phase
audible warning activate whenever the ignition switch is placed in the
``on'' or ``start'' position, ``or upon manual activation of the
propulsion system, but prior to the vehicle being placed in `possible
active
[[Page 17148]]
driving mode' as defined by FMVSS No. 305,'' among other trigger
conditions.
Reconsideration Request
Volkswagen requested clarification on whether the option to
activate the front seat belt first-phase audible warning not only at
ignition but also at activation of the propulsion system applies to
internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles that have been shifted into a
reverse or driving gear as well as electric vehicles (EVs).
Agency Response
The final rule requires that the relevant trigger for the first-
phase audible warning in ICE vehicles is when the ignition switch is
placed in the ``on'' or ``start'' position. The proposed regulatory
text referred simply to the ignition switch being in the ``on'' or
``start'' position. However, commenters pointed out that this did not
take EVs into account. NHTSA agreed, and added the language to which VW
refers (that the warning activate upon manual activation of the
propulsion system, but before the vehicle is placed in ``possible
active driving mode'' as defined by FMVSS No. 305). As we explained in
the final rule, our goal in adding this language was to specify a time
in the start-up process to begin the start-of-trip warning for EVs that
is roughly the same as the time we specified for vehicles with a
conventional ignition switch such that the safety benefits for EVs
would be the same as for ignition-equipped vehicles. That is, the
intent of the language was to specify a trigger for EVs that
approximated the trigger for ICE vehicles, not the other way around.
Moreover, VW's suggested change would permit the audible warning in an
ICE vehicle to be delayed until the vehicle is shifted into gear. As
NHTSA explained in both the NPRM \12\ and final rule, we believe that
for ICE vehicles, basing the trigger on the ignition switch is
preferable to delaying the warning until the vehicle is placed in gear.
With that delay, there could be instances where a driver would pull out
onto the road before the warning starts and before passengers have
belted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 88 FR 61674 (Sept. 7, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Rear Seat Belt Warning System Occupancy Criteria
The use of occupant detection enables the use of more effective
warnings, such as audible alerts. NHTSA recognized in the final rule,
however, that occupant detection for the rear seats continues to
present technological and cost challenges, so the final rule does not
require or necessitate occupant detection to meet the rear seat belt
warning system requirements. (Approximately 7 percent of MY 2022
vehicles in the U.S. were equipped with occupant detection in the rear
seats.) The final rule requires only a start-of-trip visual warning
indicating how many or which rear seat belts are in use and/or not in
use; this necessitates a seat belt buckle sensor and associated
components, not any occupant detection capabilities. For vehicles that
manufacturers equip voluntarily with occupant detection, the final rule
specifies that a visual warning is not required for an unoccupied seat.
For testing the seat belt warning with an occupied seat, the final
rule specifies (at the option of the manufacturer) either an
anthropomorphic test device at least as large as a 49 CFR part 572,
subpart N 6-year-old child dummy or a human occupant 21 kg (46.5 lbs.)
or more in weight and 114 cm (45 inches) or more in height.\13\ This
differs from Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation No. 16
(R16), which specifies the use of a fifth percentile female (108 lbs.
[50 kg]) or similar weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ These are the bottom of the ranges specified in FMVSS No.
208 S29.1(e) for the weight and height of a human child who may be
used in certain of the advanced air bag testing in place of the six-
year-old child dummy. The child 6-year-old dummy weighs
approximately 24 kg (53 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of commenters to the NPRM disagreed with specifying a six-
year-old child dummy and recommended specifying criteria corresponding
to a fifth percentile female. Among other things, they identified
technological issues with detecting occupants as small as a six-year-
old. They also commented that vehicle models already equipped with rear
seat occupant detection were based on detecting a fifth percentile
female and argued that if NHTSA specified the use of an occupant
corresponding to a six-year-old, manufacturers would be forced to
downgrade the rear seat belt warning systems in these vehicles by
removing the occupant detection.
NHTSA finalized the use of a six-year-old child dummy because it
determined that a system based on a fifth percentile female could
result in unbelted child occupants in the rear not benefitting from the
seat belt warning. For instance, if a negative-only system \14\ with
occupant detection did not detect an unbelted child smaller than the
fifth percentile female seated in a rear seat, the visual warning would
not indicate an unbelted child occupant (e.g., for systems with a
pictogram that indicates which seat are not in use, the pictogram would
likely display something like a ``grayed-out'' seat to indicate that
the system was registering a seat as unoccupied). In this scenario, the
driver may not realize that the system is not detecting the unbelted
child occupant and may believe the child is restrained when they are
not. We noted that this concern is not hypothetical and pointed to an
owner's manual alerting the owner that the seat belt system might not
detect a child (or small adult) sitting in the seat. We also noted that
the fact that the system does not work for some classes of occupants
could also lead the driver to be less likely to respond to accurate
warnings, and that these shortcomings could also affect consumer
acceptance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ A negative-only system indicates how many or which rear
seat belts are not in use. A negative-only system with occupant
detection indicates how many or which of the occupied seats have
seat belts which are not in use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA recognized the technical and cost challenges detection of a
six-year-old presents, but noted that the final rule does not require
occupant detection. We also suggested that these challenges were not
insurmountable. The final rule acknowledged that because the belt use
rates for children ages 6 to 10 are already so high, there would be
much smaller monetizable benefits for those children. There would be
greater benefits for older children, but because NHTSA did not have the
data for older children broken out from the data for adults, NHTSA was
unable to specifically estimate the benefits for older children as a
group. NHTSA acknowledged that specifying the 6-year-old child dummy
could lead manufacturers to offer fewer rear seat belt reminder systems
with occupant detection. However, we believed that it was important to
ensure that vulnerable younger occupants would be covered by the
warning.
Reconsideration Request
IEE urged NHTSA to specify criteria corresponding to a fifth
percentile female for the purposes of testing the seat belt reminder
system with an occupied seat. At the same time, however, IEE appeared
to recognize that occupant detection based on a fifth percentile female
(together with a start-of-trip audible warning for such occupants that
are unbelted) are compatible with the final rule. This is possible
because the final rule requires simply a visual warning indicating belt
status at vehicle start-up; manufacturers may therefore comply with the
final rule by providing a visual warning indicating the status of the
rear seat belts--regardless of whether the system detects an occupant
at a seat--together with an audible warning for occupants at least as
large as a fifth percentile
[[Page 17149]]
female that the occupant detection system is able to detect.
Nevertheless, IEE made a number of arguments in support of its request
to specify criteria corresponding to a fifth percentile female.
IEE argued that MAP-21 does not mandate or identify a specific
target population for the rear seat belt warning, and that seat belt
reminder systems are not a ``child safety'' technology. IEE also
commented that NHTSA did not provide adequate notice and opportunity to
comment on the proposal because the final rule interpreted MAP-21 in a
way that the NPRM did not; IEE therefore could not take this reasoning
into account in its NPRM comments.
IEE also urged NHTSA to harmonize with ECE R16 and worldwide New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP) protocols, which use the fifth percentile
female occupancy criteria for performance testing purposes. IEE also
commented that the European market shows that vehicle manufacturers
respond positively to incentives for enhanced rear seat SBR systems and
that fitment with occupant detection has increased greatly since Euro
NCAP began incentivizing it in 2018. In addition, IEE argued that this
would also lead to lower costs and more technological improvement than
the final rule. IEE also argued that the restrictive final rule
requirements leave almost no room for NCAP to incentivize performance
above and beyond the regulatory minimum.
IEE also commented on various technological challenges with
detecting smaller occupants, such as variables in the vehicle
environment and the need to detect consistently and accurately such
small occupants for the purposes of a compliance test while at the same
time minimizing false warnings. IEE also commented that while
additional in-cabin sensing technologies (e.g., cameras) are installed
increasingly for other functionalities, such technologies cannot be
considered within the lead time provided by the final rule, but that
instead specifying a fifth percentile female would give vehicle
manufacturers the opportunity to innovate. IEE also commented that the
rule was not practicable with the finalized lead time, and that even if
possibly feasible, the efforts to achieve compliance would lead to
significant redevelopment costs.
IEE commented that specifying criteria corresponding to a six-year-
old would impact negatively the safety of vehicles already available on
the market by discouraging vehicle manufacturers from adding
voluntarily occupant detection and enhanced features that go beyond the
basic compliance option. IEE commented that this would degrade safety
because vehicles with occupant detection are able to provide more
effective enhanced reminders. IEE also argued that NHTSA provided no
evidence to justify safety concerns about vehicles equipped with rear
seat belt reminder systems utilizing occupant detection based on a
fifth percentile female.
Related to this, IEE argued that the appropriate target population
for occupant detection-enabled systems is teens and adults, not small
children, because, as noted in the final rule (and FRIA), the belt use
rate for children ages 6 to 10 is very high (98 percent), so that the
potential benefits for this group is quite small compared to occupants
11 years old and older. IEE argued that most child occupants 11 years
old and older would be detected by sensors designed to detect a fifth
percentile female.
Accordingly, IEE argued that there would be greater benefits if
NHTSA were to specify occupant criteria corresponding to a fifth
percentile female for the purposes of testing with a rear seat
occupied. Based on a 2012 study,\15\ IEE estimated that an audio-visual
rear seat belt warning is 3.3 times more effective than a visual-only
warning to the driver. Based on this effectiveness estimate, IEE
estimated the potential benefits of occupant detection given different
fitment rates for occupant detection (the percentage of the fleet with
such systems). IEE estimated that for occupants 11 years old and older,
benefits range from 53 lives saved (with a 20 percent fitment rate) to
114 (with a 100 percent fitment rate). On the other hand, IEE estimated
that under the final rule, which requires 100 percent fitment, only 2
lives would be saved for children ages 6 to 10. IEE argued that this
showed that the potential loss for adults (by removing occupant
detection and enhanced warnings) is significantly higher than the
potential gain for children (by imposing 6-year-old detection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ M. Akamatsu, et al ``Assessment Method of Effectiveness of
Passenger Seat Belt Reminder,'' SAE 2012-01-0050 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
NHTSA is denying IEE's request because the flexibility IEE is
requesting is, to a great extent, already permitted by the final rule.
To the extent that IEE is requesting additional flexibility that would
be enabled by specifying occupancy criteria corresponding to a fifth
percentile female, NHTSA is denying the request because NHTSA believes
that specifying criteria corresponding to a fifth percentile female
would allow a visual start-of-trip warning that would not alert the
driver to an unbelted young (small) occupant.
NHTSA agrees, as IEE points out in its petition, that a visual
warning that complies with the final rule can be implemented
independently of the occupant detection threshold or any occupant
detection. Therefore, the final rule need not--and does not--prohibit
vehicles from being equipped with an occupant detection system capable
of detecting occupants only at least as large as a fifth percentile
female (and providing an audible warning for such occupants who are
unbelted), as long as the visual warning complies with the final rule
when the vehicle is tested for compliance using an occupant as small as
a six-year-old dummy.
A manufacturer wishing to equip vehicles with an occupant detection
system capable of detecting occupants only at least as large as a fifth
percentile female could proceed as follows: The final rule requires a
visual warning to the driver at vehicle start-up indicating how many or
which rear seat belts are in use and/or not in use, irrespective of the
occupancy status of the rear seats. It is therefore possible to comply
with this visual warning requirement using only buckle sensors; it does
not necessitate occupant detection. As long as the seat belt warning
system provides a compliant start-of-trip visual warning that informs
the driver of the use status of the rear seat belts, irrespective of
occupancy, nothing precludes the manufacturer from also equipping the
vehicle with an occupant detection system capable of detecting
occupants only as large as a fifth percentile female. Further, there is
nothing in the final rule preventing the seat belt warning system from
using this occupant detection capability to provide, in addition to the
visual warning on vehicle start-up, an audible warning.
So, for example, a manufacturer could equip a vehicle with a full-
status system \16\ with a visual warning indicating the use status of
the rear seat belts, and also provide an audible warning if the system
detects an unbuckled occupant at least as large as a fifth percentile
female. Such a system would be able to pass a compliance test if NHTSA
seated a six-year-old dummy, because the final rule requires only a
[[Page 17150]]
start-of-trip visual warning which is based on buckle status, not
occupancy. The rule would require a visual warning that does not depend
on occupant size, and so will not leave out young children who should
be belted, while at the same time providing manufacturers the
flexibility to utilize occupant detection and an audio-visual warning
for larger occupants (teens and adults).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A full-status system indicates how many or which rear seat
belts are in use and how many or which rear seat belts are not in
use. A full-status system with occupant detection indicates, for the
occupied rear seats, how many or which rear seat belts are in use
and how many or which rear seat belts are not in use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, because an occupant detection system based on a fifth
percentile female would not be capable of detecting occupants as small
as a six-year-old, the system would not be permitted to take advantage
of all the flexibilities the final rule would permit for systems
capable of detecting a six-year-old. In particular, the system would
not be able to take advantage of the exemption in the final rule from
providing a start-of-trip visual warning for an unoccupied seat for
systems that are able to determine whether a seat is occupied. (ECE R16
has a similar provision for systems with occupant detection.\17\) This
enables the warning system to provide more streamlined and informative
warnings to the driver. It would allow the seat belt reminder system to
function as more of a ``true'' warning (i.e., providing a warning only
if there is an unbuckled occupant).\18\ These types of warnings might
be more effective than the warnings a system without occupant detection
is able to provide. However, NHTSA is not aware of any data on whether
there is a difference in effectiveness between a ``true'' warning and
an informational warning, and, if there is a difference in
effectiveness, the magnitude of this difference. NHTSA has concluded
that whatever advantages such warnings could offer for older (larger)
occupants, out of concern for younger (smaller) occupants the final
rule should not allow it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The revised final rule similarly permits the rear seat belt
change-of-status warning to deactivate if the seat with the
unfastened belt is no longer occupied (see Section III.f.).
\18\ A reminder system utilizing occupant detection based on a
fifth percentile female would not be permitted to offer such
features because if NHTSA tested the system with a six-year-old
dummy in one of the rear seats, the system would not comply with the
start-of-trip visual warning requirements (it would classify
incorrectly the seat as unoccupied, and therefore not provide a
visual warning for it).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA acknowledges that while the finalized regulatory text permits
a rear seat belt warning system that utilizes occupant detection based
on a fifth percentile female, the final rule preamble introduced
ambiguity on this issue inadvertently. In many instances NHTSA stated
accurately that the final rule specified the dummy NHTSA would use in
testing compliance.\19\ However, at other points, NHTSA stated that the
final rule specified the minimum size of occupant that an occupant
detection system must be able to detect.\20\ NHTSA is now clarifying
that the final rule does not prevent a manufacturer from equipping a
vehicle with an occupant detection system capable of detecting
occupants only at least as large as a fifth percentile female. Rather,
the final rule specifies that for testing purposes NHTSA may seat an
occupant as small as the six-year-old dummy and the system must provide
a start-of-trip visual warning indicating accurately how many or which
rear seat belts are in use and/or not in use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See, e.g. id. at 410 (``After considering the comments,
NHTSA has decided to adopt the proposal to use (at the option of the
manufacturer) either a anthropomorphic test device at least as large
as a 49 CFR part 572, subpart N 6-year-old child dummy or a person,
at the manufacturer's option, that is at least 21 kg in weight and
114 cm in height to define an occupied rear designated seating
position for the purposes of testing the rear seat belt reminder
system.'').
\20\ See, e.g., id. at 410 (``NHTSA has concluded that it would
. . . [be] appropriate to require that an occupant detection system
be capable of detecting at least a 6-year-old.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA does not have information on whether already-deployed
occupant detection systems would comply with the final rule. If they
do, no changes would be necessary to comply with the final rule. If
not, they will need to be modified. NHTSA is clarifying in this interim
final rule, however, that the system would not need to be capable of
detecting a six-year-old child dummy; consequently, any modifications
would be to the visual warning. Such changes should not be unduly
burdensome and are in line with other changes to already-deployed
visual warnings that might be necessitated by other parts of the final
rule, such as redesigning the visual display and modifying software.
The final rule would therefore not necessarily require manufacturers to
downgrade significantly vehicle models that are already equipped with
occupant detection systems that detect occupants only as small as a
fifth percentile female. To the extent that deployed systems do not
already comply with the final rule, IEE is correct that NHTSA does not
have data on whether such systems have led to consumer confusion or
safety issues (i.e., the driver believing that an unrestrained younger
child was belted). However, as we discuss here and in the final rule,
NHTSA is concerned that this leaves out an entire category of
occupants. In the absence of data either way, NHTSA is deciding to
specify a six-year-old criterion for testing with a seat occupied to
ensure that the driver does not receive a visual warning that could
lead her or him to believe erroneously an unbelted child is belted.
The clarification that the final rule does not prevent
manufacturers from equipping vehicles with an occupant detection system
capable of detecting occupants only at least as large as a fifth
percentile female resolves many of the arguments IEE raises in its
petition. The final rule therefore allows manufacturers to take
advantage of most of the enhanced features provided by systems
utilizing occupant detection based on a fifth percentile female. The
final rule is also compatible with ECE R16 because a rear seat belt
system with an occupant detection system designed to detect reliably
occupants as small as a six-year-old will also be able to detect larger
occupants. The fact that the final rule is compatible with occupant
detection based on a fifth percentile female also addresses IEE's
argument concerning the take rate for occupant detection in Europe.
With respect to lead time, though systems utilizing occupant detection
based on a fifth-percentile female might still need some modifications,
this should not necessarily be more burdensome than equipping vehicles
with rear seat belt warnings generally and providing a compliant
warning, especially with the delayed compliance date.
Turning to IEE's other arguments, NHTSA agrees that MAP-21 does not
necessarily require NHTSA to specify an occupant corresponding to a
six-year-old child for compliance testing. Among other things, the MAP-
21 mandate is subject expressly to Sec. 30111 of the Safety Act, which
requires that a safety standard both meet the need for safety and be
practicable. In any case, as NHTSA also pointed out in the final rule,
the Safety Act gives NHTSA the discretionary authority to issue safety
standards to address specific safety needs. NHTSA's decision therefore
does not depend on MAP-21 because NHTSA has concluded independently
that specifying occupancy criteria corresponding to a six-year-old
meets the need for safety and is practicable.
NHTSA does not disagree that there are technological challenges
associated with detecting a six-year-old. NHTSA also appreciates IEE's
point, in response to NHTSA's observation in the final rule that some
vehicle owners' manuals seem to suggest that some rear seat occupant
detection systems may be capable of detecting occupants as small as a
six-year-old, that there is a difference between detection of a small
object at the edge of a system's performance envelope and a system that
[[Page 17151]]
is able to detect reliably smaller occupants in a pass-fail compliance
context. It is for these reasons that the final rule does not require
occupant detection.
NHTSA does not agree with IEE that the target population for rear
seat belt reminders would be represented adequately by specifying
criteria corresponding to a fifth percentile female. There are a couple
of reasons for this.
First, NHTSA does not agree with IEE that the target population for
rear seat belt reminders is limited to teens and adults and does not or
should not include younger (smaller) children. That is, even though
NHTSA's regulatory analysis shows that there are fewer monetizable
benefits for children ages 6 to 10, NHTSA is not convinced that this
group should not get the benefit of a warning. Children 12 years old or
younger account for over half of rear seat occupants,\21\ and many of
these children (depending on their height and weight) will (and should)
be wearing a seat belt.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Based on police-reported crashes documented in the Crash
Report Sampling System (CRSS). Out of all sampled crashes from 2016-
2022, 57 percent of rear seat occupants were 12 years old or
younger.
\22\ 88 FR 61674, See also Stephanie Huang and Matthew P. Reed
(2006). Comparison of Child Body Dimensions with Rear Seat Geometry.
Warrendale, PA: SAE International. The findings from this study were
based on National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates
System (NASS-GES) data. It also reported that approximately 70
percent of rear seat occupants of passenger cars, sport utility
vehicles, and minivans are children under the age of 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, IEE's request recognizes implicitly that the target
population includes some children smaller than a fifth percentile
female. IEE stated that `` `low' belt wearing rates are typically an
issue for adults and teenagers'' \23\ and that ``[t]he 11+ age group is
a good approximation of the population covered by sensors designed for
a 5% female detection, and most occupants in that group will be
detected[.]'' \24\ However, based on weight, specifying criteria
corresponding to a fifth-percentile female ((which weighs 108 lbs. [50
kg])) would exclude the following proportions of children by age, each
of which weighs less than 108 lbs.: \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Comment at pg. 6.
\24\ Comment at pg. 10.
\25\ Center for Disease Control Growth Charts for Children 2-20
years of age Data Files, published in May 2000 and available at
https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/cdc-data-files.htm (last accessed
April 23, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
92 percent of 11-year-old boys and 90 percent of 11-year-
old girls;
80 percent of 12-year-old boys and 77 percent of 12-year-
old girls;
66 percent of 13-year-old boys and 64 percent of 13-year-
old girls;
42 percent of 14-year-old boys and 49 percent of 14-year-
old girls;
21 percent of 15-year-old boys and 36 percent of 15-year-
old girls;
9 percent of 16-year-old boys and 26 percent of 16-year-
old girls;
4 percent of 17-year-old boys and 20 percent of 17-year-
old girls; and
2 percent of 18-year-old boys and 16 percent of 18-year-
old girls.
NHTSA also does not agree with IEE's benefits analysis, for a few
reasons.
First, IEE's analysis overstates the benefits because a system that
detects occupants only at least as large as a fifth percentile female
would not be able to detect a non-trivial proportion of the pre-teens
and teens that IEE agrees is part of the target population for a rear
seat belt warning system. Many pre-teens and teens are smaller than a
fifth percentile female and would not be detected by a rear seat belt
reminder system employing an occupant detection system able to detect
occupants only as large or larger than a fifth percentile female--and
so would not get the benefit of an audio-visual warning.
Second, while NHTSA agrees that a seat belt reminder system that
provides an audio-visual warning could be more effective than a visual-
only warning, NHTSA is not aware of any persuasive evidence that an
audio-visual warning would be three times more effective than a visual-
only warning. IEE's effectiveness estimate comes from a 2012 paper that
reported the results of an experimental study conducted in Japan on
seat belt reminders. That study (which was cited and discussed, but not
relied on, in the FRIA) has a number of limitations that make it
inappropriate for use in this rulemaking. These limitations stem from
the overall design of the study, differences in how seat belt laws are
enforced, and seat belt use rates in the U.S. and Japan, among other
things. The study was experimental; test subjects were asked to
subjectively rate the effectiveness of different types of seat belt
reminders. The lack of realism (as opposed to the FRIA, which used
observational data) makes the estimates from the study not appropriate
for use in this rulemaking. For another thing, the baseline seat belt
use rate reported in the study for rear seat occupants in vehicles
without a seat belt warning system in Japan was 38 percent. In
comparison, the analysis in the FRIA estimated that the baseline rear
seat belt use rate without a seat belt warning system in the U.S. was
73.5 percent and 98.2 percent for rear seat occupants ages 6 to 10 and
those 11 years and older, respectively.\26\ These differences between
Japan and the U.S. mean that any results do not necessarily translate
well to the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ For more discussion, please see the FRIA (page 72).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third and finally, a three-fold increase in effectiveness does not
translate into a three-fold increase in benefits. To estimate benefits,
IEE multiplied simply the number of fatalities prevented by three, and
adjusts this number based on the fitment rate. This oversimplifies the
appropriate benefits estimation in a number of ways. For instance, an
appropriate benefits estimation requires more than multiplying simply
the number of avoided fatalities by the fitment rate. A proper analysis
must examine the incremental benefits of the rule: that is, it must
account for the baseline fitment rate and the corresponding seat belt
use rate to then account for how seat belt use would change and its
resulting impact on both non-fatal injuries and fatalities prevented by
seat belts. The FRIA presents this analysis in detail.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ For more discussion, please see the FRIA (page 87).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Rear Seat Change-Of-Status Warning Requirement for Two-Door Vehicles
The final rule requires an audio-visual rear seat change-of-status
warning that activates whenever a fastened rear seat belt is unfastened
while the vehicle is in a forward or reverse drive mode and must last
for at least 30 seconds or until the seat belt that triggered the
warning is re-fastened. This requirement included an exception for the
activation of the rear seat change-of-status warning when a rear door
is opened (i.e., for a drop-off scenario: a change-of-status warning is
not required if a rear passenger unbuckles and exits the vehicle).
Reconsideration Request
Volkswagen sought clarification on this requirement and questioned
if the front doors are allowed as a trigger for deactivating the rear
change-of-status warning in the case of a vehicle that has rear seating
positions and only two front doors (i.e., no rear doors). Volkswagen
further requested including a provision for such vehicles to avoid an
unnecessary audio-visual warning for a rear seat occupant that has
exited the vehicle via a front door, as it has for vehicles that have
rear doors.
Agency Response
NHTSA has taken this request into consideration, but is denying the
request. The majority of vehicles with rear designated seating
positions are
[[Page 17152]]
equipped with rear doors (approximately 36 percent of vehicles are two-
door vehicles,\28\ but not all of these vehicles have rear designated
seating positions). In addition, the requirement that the vehicle must
be in a forward or reverse drive mode for a rear seat change-of-status
warning to activate aims to mitigate the occurrence of such events.
Furthermore, because the change-of-status warning has a required
duration that is short, the exposure to the warning in such events
would be limited. Lastly, NHTSA determined that specifying simply the
use of the front doors would not address sufficiently foreseeable
scenarios in which a front door might be opened. For example, if a rear
passenger unbuckled their seat belt at the same time that a front
passenger exited the vehicle, the change-of-status warning would not be
activated for the rear passenger. Therefore, a viable solution would be
more complicated than referencing simply the opening of a front door
for these vehicles. The additional design changes (e.g., seat track
sensor, seat back angle sensor) and cost that would be necessary for a
vehicle to comply with a more robust regulatory specification would
likely not be justified by the minimal benefit of such efforts (i.e.,
mitigating consumer annoyance by allowing the deactivation of an
already short-duration warning).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Wards Automotive Yearbook, based on average of MY 2017--MY
2021 data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, to further mitigate nuisance activations of the change-of-
status warning when a rear passenger has exited the vehicle, NHTSA is
revising the requirement to add additional deactivation conditions.
Specifically, this interim final rule amends the requirements to permit
the warning to deactivate if the vehicle is stopped and no longer in
forward or reverse drive mode, or until any rear door is opened,\29\ or
if the system is able to determine that the seating position that
triggered the warning is no longer occupied. A behavioral solution to
this issue would be for the driver to learn to put the transmission
into the park position (or an equivalent mode for an EV) when
offloading a rear seat passenger in a two-door vehicle. NHTSA seeks
comment on this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ This additional allowance for the warning to deactivate if
a rear door is opened is meant to address change-of-status events
where the rear seat passenger opens the door to exit the vehicle
after the change-of-status warning is activated, whereas, the door
condition in the original regulatory text, that is unchanged by this
final rule, prevents the warning from activating if any rear door is
open when the change-of-status occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
g. Telltales Associated With Multiple Front Outboard Seats
The final rule established several requirements for the front seat
belt visual warning. Among other things, it required that the visual
warning may be continuous or intermittent and must display the
identifying symbol or the words specified in table 2 of FMVSS No. 101
(Sec. 571.101). It also required, in S7.5(b)(1)(v), that a visual
warning associated with multiple front outboard seats must identify
clearly the seating positions for which the warnings are intended.\30\
In the preamble of the final rule, NHTSA explained that this
requirement did not require a separate telltale for each front seating
position nor any particular visual warning design. NHTSA explained that
it was giving vehicle manufacturers the flexibility to design their
systems such that they can certify in good faith that the visual
warning identifies clearly the seating position(s) for which the
warning(s) is intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ S7.5(b)(1)(v) (``For a visual warning associated with
multiple front outboard seats, the visual warning must clearly
identify the seating positions for which the warnings are
intended.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reconsideration Request
Auto Innovators requested that NHTSA modify the requirement that a
visual warning associated with multiple front outboard seats must
identify the seating position for which the warning was intended. It
argued that the requirement is ambiguous and not objectively defined.
It also argued that it was unnecessary, because if a visual warning is
provided to the driver, the driver should be able to determine if the
warning is for them or the front outboard passenger. It argued that the
standard should permit the use of a single telltale (i.e., the
longstanding telltale specified in FMVSS No. 101) without any
additional identifying visual design elements. To accomplish this, Auto
Innovators suggested either deleting S7.5(b)(1)(v) in its entirety or
modifying it to specify that ``the visual warning may include
additional visual information.'' Auto Innovators pointed out that some
existing vehicles already use a single telltale for multiple front
seating positions with no additional identifiers and stated consumers
are already familiar with this approach. Auto Innovators also commented
that, to the extent that NHTSA does not address its comment regarding
visual warnings for multiple outboard seats, additional lead time will
be needed to implement necessary hardware and software changes to all
vehicle model lines. In this scenario, Auto Innovators requested a two-
year phase-in beginning on September 1, 2027 (Y1 50%) with full
compliance by September 1, 2028 (Y2 100%).
Agency Response
NHTSA agrees that the regulatory language associated with the
requirement that a visual warning associated with multiple front
outboard seats must ``clearly identify'' the seating position for which
the warning was intended can be specified more clearly. In this interim
final rule, NHTSA revises the regulatory text to specify that the
warning must use supplementary symbols, words, or abbreviations to
indicate the seating positions for which the warnings are intended. As
one example, if the manufacturer provides a pictogram, in addition to
the FMVSS No. 101 symbol, indicating the buckle status of all seating
positions in the vehicle, this pictogram would satisfy this
requirement.
However, NHTSA is denying Auto Innovators' suggestion to delete
S7.5(b)(1)(v) altogether or make it voluntary. NHTSA's response in the
preamble to the final rule described why we are requiring that visual
warnings associated with multiple front outboard seats identify the
seat for which the warning is intended. NHTSA does not have a basis to
conclude that a single telltale with no additional identifiers is
familiar to customers, as Auto Innovators did not provide data to
support this claim. NHTSA continues to believe that visual warnings
associated with multiple front outboard seats must identify the seat
for which the warning is intended. This is particularly important when
the driver is unbelted, where a visual warning that does not identify
which seat the warning is for would not provide useful information to
the driver as to whether the front outboard passenger is buckled.
Though we are denying this aspect of the petition, NHTSA believes that
describing the requirements for visual warnings associated with
multiple front outboard seats more clearly (as described above), as
well as granting a lead time extension (as described below), will
satisfy the request from Auto Innovators.
Removing the requirement would also not align with the level of
detail required for the rear seat visual warning, which specifies that
the warning must indicate how many or which rear seat belts are in use
or not in use. In addition, as noted above, if a manufacturer, in
addition to using a single FMVSS No. 101 seat belt telltale symbol for
both front seats, uses a pictogram that includes the front seats
[[Page 17153]]
(perhaps integrated with a pictogram that is used to comply with the
new rear seat belt warning requirements) this would comply with the
requirement to ``use supplementary symbols, words, or abbreviations to
indicate the seating positions for which the warnings are intended.''
In its petition for reconsideration, Auto Innovators stated that,
if its proposed modifications to the requirements for visual warnings
associated with multiple front outboard seats were not addressed by
NHTSA, manufacturers would need additional lead time to implement the
necessary system changes. In that case, Auto Innovators asked for a
two-year phase-in, where 50 percent of vehicles would need to meet the
requirements beginning on September 1, 2027 and 100 percent of vehicles
would need to meet the requirements beginning on September 1, 2028. As
discussed earlier, this interim final rule provides additional lead
time such that the front seat belt warning system requirements would
become mandatory starting September 1, 2028. As such, the amended lead
time would meet the timeline requested by Auto Innovators if the
requirements for visual warnings associated with multiple front
outboard seats were not amended as requested. Thus, NHTSA is denying
Auto Innovators' request for modifications to the requirements for
visual warnings associated with multiple front outboard seats, but
granting an extension to lead time that encompasses its requested two-
year phase-in.
In addition, in reviewing this request from Auto Innovators, NHTSA
became aware that the requirements for the rear seat visual warning in
S7.5(c)(3)(iv) stated that the rear seat change-of-status warning ``may
use the same telltale as the start of trip warning.'' This language may
have been understood to preclude the example described earlier, for
telltales associated with multiple front outboard seats, where a
manufacturer may choose to display a pictogram in addition to the FMVSS
No. 101 telltale. Because the final rule required a telltale for the
rear seat change-of-status visual warning, the described pictogram
approach would not satisfy the requirement. NHTSA is therefore amending
S7.5(c)(3)(iv) to replace ``telltale'' with ``visual warning'' to
enable this design flexibility.
NHTSA seeks comment on these changes.
IV. Basis for Issuing an Interim Final Rule Effective Immediately
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to issue
a rule without notice and comment, and to make a rule effective sooner
than 30 days after its publication, if the agency finds good cause for
doing so and provides an explanation in the preamble. Similarly, while
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) \31\
generally requires that a motor vehicle safety standard may not become
effective sooner than the 180th day after the standard is prescribed,
it too permits NHTSA to establish an earlier effective date if there is
good cause to do so. As we explain below, NHTSA has concluded that
there is good cause to issue this interim final rule without notice and
comment and to make it effective immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Cause Justification Under the APA for Waiving Prior Notice and
Opportunity for Comment
The APA permits an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity for comment ``when the agency for good cause finds (and
incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in
the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' \32\
Impracticable ``means a situation in which the due and required
execution of the agency functions would be unavoidably prevented by its
undertaking public rule-making proceedings.'' \33\ Unnecessary refers
to ``those situations in which the administrative rule is a routine
determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential
to the industry and to the public.'' \34\ The public interest element
of the good cause exception is properly invoked when ``the timing and
disclosure requirements of the usual procedures would defeat the
purpose of the proposal[.]'' \35\ ``The question is not whether
dispensing with notice and comment would be contrary to the public
interest, but whether providing notice and comment would be contrary to
the public interest.'' \36\ Providing notice and comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest in the specific
circumstances of this interim final rule for several reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
\33\ United States v. Cotton, 760 F. Supp. 2d 116, 129 (D.D.C.
2011) (citing legislative history) (citations and quotations
omitted).
\34\ Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 682 F.3d 87, 94
(D.C. Cir. 2012) (citations and quotations omitted).
\35\ Id. at 95.
\36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, providing prior notice and opportunity for comment would
mean that the final rule would be published too late for manufacturers
to utilize the extra lead time afforded by this rule. As noted earlier,
based on recent information Auto Innovators has submitted to NHTSA,
vehicle manufacturers are experiencing design and production challenges
such that they may not be able to ensure full compliance of all covered
vehicles within the current lead time. Manufacturers, absent this final
rule, are designing and planning production for their vehicles based on
the fact that the new front seat belt warning requirements become
obligatory on September 1, 2026. Production planning (tooling, supply
chains, etc.) necessitates that vehicle designs and concomitant
production plans be established well before September 1 for production
to take place on and after September 1. Therefore, the delay in lead
time implemented by this final rule (which NHTSA believes is necessary
for the reasons provided in Section III.a,) would likely come too late
for at least some vehicle models were NHTSA to provide for notice and
comment; by the time NHTSA were to publish a final rule, manufacturers
may have already decided to pause production of some vehicle models due
to an inability to fully validate rule-compliant front seat belt
systems in time for model year 2027. Accordingly, if this final rule is
not published sufficiently in advance of September 1, manufacturers
would likely have to delay or even cancel production of vehicle models
that they had not yet been able to bring into compliance. Any lapses or
delays in production can adversely affect manufacturer revenue,
operations, and supply chains, and, if the lapse is long enough, could
cause delays or even cancellations of model year launches. This could
even include models that currently have provided voluntarily rear or
front passenger SBRSs that, while not meeting all of the new
requirements, do provide safety benefits. This would affect not only
vehicle manufacturers and suppliers, but also consumers, who would
enjoy fewer choices in the vehicle market; additional costs caused by
the delay might also be passed onto consumers.
Second, NHTSA believes it is reasonable to conclude that there is a
non-trivial risk that such launch delays or cancellations would occur
and that these would not be isolated occurrences. The new seat belt
warning requirements apply to a large majority of the new vehicle
fleet. Auto Innovators recently
[[Page 17154]]
surveyed its members to ``understand the impact of the rule based on
the current lead time.'' \37\ It stated that ``[t]here seems to be
strong consensus among our members'' that launch delays or even
cancellations would occur, though ``the actual volume, or the models at
risk, are unknown'' until vehicle validation is complete.\38\
Therefore, while NHTSA does not have complete information on this issue
and some uncertainty necessarily exists, NHTSA finds that the risk of
non-trivial disruption is sufficiently likely to justify waiving notice
and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Auto Innovators supplemental submission (Docket No. NHTSA-
2024-0071-0008).
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other factors also support NHTSA's conclusion that there is good
cause to waive notice and comment in these particular circumstances.
First, this interim final rule is limited in scope. The rule responds
to petitions for reconsideration of the January 2025 final rule. NHTSA
received a limited number of petitions on a narrow range of topics,
most of which concerned relatively minor technical issues and requests
for clarification. This interim final rule does not remove or
significantly alter any of the requirements in the January 2025 final
rule. The major substantive request that NHTSA received, and the change
that this interim final rule makes, is to grant vehicle and equipment
manufacturers' request for more lead time. However, even this change to
the January 2025 final rule is of relatively limited scope and
duration. This interim final rule simply provides an additional year of
lead time for the rear seat belt requirements and an additional two
years for the front seat belt requirements for manufacturers to produce
vehicles that comply with the new requirements. Importantly, we do not
expect this interim final rule to lead to any decrease in vehicle
safety compared to if we did not issue this interim final rule. In
addition, the amendments this interim final rule makes are within the
scope of the September 2023 NPRM that the public initially commented
on, so that, to a large extent, the public has already had the
opportunity to comment, and NHTSA has considered those comments in
issuing this interim final rule. Finally, NHTSA has no reason to
believe vehicle manufacturers have not made a good faith effort to
bring vehicles into compliance with the new requirements in a timely
fashion; the fact that this is an issue being faced across the entire
industry--as opposed to one or two manufacturers--supports this belief.
Providing notice and an opportunity to comment prior to the rule taking
effect would therefore be contrary to the public interest and defeat
one of the purposes of this interim final rule, which is to provide
manufacturers with more lead time to prevent any disruptions to the
market. NHTSA therefore believes that the public interest would be best
served by foregoing notice and comment in this unusual situation.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ NHTSA similarly believes that there is good cause to waive
notice and comment with respect to the amendment to the regulatory
text for the front seat belt first-phase audible warning. This
amendment is a minor technical correction that clarifies the
regulatory text so that it more clearly expresses the intent of the
requirement, as explained in the preamble to the January 2025 final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Cause Justification Under the APA and Safety Act for an Immediate
Effective Date
This interim final rule is effective immediately. While the APA
generally requires that the effective date be no sooner than 30 days
after the publication date, the APA permits agencies to make rules
effective sooner than this for, among other things, ``good cause found
and published with the rule'' \40\ and rules which grant or recognize
an exemption or relieve a restriction.\41\ Similarly, while the Safety
Act generally requires that a motor vehicle safety standard may not
become effective sooner than the 180th day after the standard is
issued, it too permits an earlier effective date if the Secretary
(NHTSA by delegation) determines there is good cause and it is in the
public interest.\42\ For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA finds there
is good cause, and it is in the public interest, for this interim final
rule to be effective immediately. In addition, to the extent that this
interim final rule relieves a restriction (in that it delays the
compliance date), this rule is exempt from the APA's effective date
delay requirements on that basis as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) (exception to effective date requirement
``as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and
published with the rule'').
\41\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) (exception to effective date requirement
for ``a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction'').
\42\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(d) (``The Secretary shall specify the
effective date of a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under
this chapter in the order prescribing the standard. A standard may
not become effective before the 180th day after the standard is
prescribed or later than one year after it is prescribed. However,
the Secretary may prescribe a different effective date after
finding, for good cause shown, that a different effective date is in
the public interest and publishing the reasons for the finding.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Request for Comment
As explained above, the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes
NHTSA to issue this interim final rule without prior notice or
opportunity for public comment. As an interim final rule, this
regulation is in effect and binding upon its effective date. No further
regulatory action by NHTSA is necessary to make this rule effective.
However, to benefit from comments that interested parties and the
public may have, NHTSA is requesting that any comments be submitted to
the docket for this notice. NHTSA is providing an opportunity for
comment on this interim final rule for 45 days after this action's
publication date. Comments received in response to this notice will be
considered by the agency. Following the close of the comment period,
the agency will publish a final rule responding to the comments and
making any necessary changes to the provisions of this interim final
rule.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Orders 12866 and 14192
NHTSA has considered the impact of this interim final rule under
Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 14192. NHTSA has considered
the costs and benefits of the rule under the principles of these
executive orders. Please refer to Section III.a, Lead time and the
docketed Regulatory Impact Analysis, for this discussion. The Office of
Management and Budget has determined that the interim final rule is a
significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f)(1) of E.O.
12866 and reviewed the rule pursuant to E.O. 12866. This interim final
rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides
that the regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ
from those taken by the United States to address similar issues, and
that in some cases the differences between them might not be necessary
and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and
compete internationally. It further recognizes that in meeting shared
challenges involving health, safety, and other issues, international
regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as
protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such
cooperation and can reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements.
In addition, section 24211 of the Infrastructure, Investment, and
Jobs Act, Global Harmonization, provides that
[[Page 17155]]
DOT ``shall cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with foreign
governments, nongovernmental stakeholder groups, the motor vehicle
industry, and consumer groups with respect to global harmonization of
vehicle regulations as a means for improving motor vehicle safety.''
\43\ As discussed in the September 2023 NPRM and the January 2025 final
rule, there are foreign regulations for seat belt reminder
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ H.R. 3684 (117th Congress) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the January 2025 Final Rule, this interim final
rule harmonizes with ECE R16, Euro NCAP, and the IIHS protocol as much
as possible, but deviates where NHTSA determined deviation was
justified with respect to the Safety Act criteria (need for safety,
objectivity, and practicability). In general, NHTSA determined that
though this rule deviates from these requirements or protocols in some
ways, it is not incompatible with them, so that it is possible to
design a seat belt reminder system that complies with both this rule
and protocols such as R16. The updates included in this interim final
rule are intended to further improve compatibility with international
standards. Thus, the requirements in this interim final rule are
consistent with these international programs and complement those
international efforts to increase seat belt use by all vehicle
occupants.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), where a proposed rule must be
published for comment by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, agencies must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e.,
small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required,
however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Because NHTSA was not required by
law to publish a proposed rule, the analytical requirements of the RFA
do not apply.
NHTSA has nonetheless analyzed the economic impacts of this rule to
determine whether the rule would have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Under the Small Business Administration's size standards
regulations used to define small businesses, manufacturers of the
vehicles covered by this rule would fall under North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) No. 336211, Automobile Manufacturing,
which has a size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer.
NHTSA estimates that there are twelve light vehicle manufacturers
in the U.S. with 1,000 employees or fewer. As noted in Section 11.1 of
the final regulatory impact analysis, the estimated annual vehicle
sales for these manufacturers is less than 100 vehicles with a sales
price range of $65,900 to $1,600,000. There are several hundred second-
stage or final-stage manufacturers and alterers that could be impacted
by this rule, some of which may be considered small. Though this
analysis is unable to estimate how many small entities may be impacted
by the rule, the rule would either have no impact or generate cost
savings for those entities.
The delay in the compliance date would reduce the burden on small
entities by providing more time to comply with the new requirements.
Revising the regulatory text to clarify that it was not NHTSA's intent
to limit the front seat belt first-phase audible warning to 30 seconds
also provides manufacturers with more flexibility in designing the
system. NHTSA's clarification that the final rule requires that the
relevant trigger for the first-phase audible warning in ICE vehicles is
when the ignition switch is placed in the ``on'' or ``start'' position,
and not when the vehicle is in gear, is not a burden on small
manufacturers because this mirrors the trigger for the longstanding
requirements for the driver's seat belt warning. Amending the rule to
specify that the front seat belt visual warning must use supplementary
symbols, words, or abbreviations to indicate the seating positions for
which the warnings are intended would not have a significant impact
because the change merely clarifies the existing regulatory text.
Therefore, NHTSA has concluded that the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
(UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of regulatory
actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal
government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million
(the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation
to 2025) or more in any 1 year. This rule does not contain Federal
mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
State, local and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $206
million or more in any one year. Thus, the analytical requirements of
the UMRA do not apply to this action.
Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies
that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative
comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or
actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. NHTSA has assessed the impact
of this interim final rule on Indian tribes and determined that this
rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under
Executive Order 13175.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the
collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. This rule does not impose any additional
information collection requirements requiring OMB approval under the
PRA.
E-Government Act Compliance
NHTSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, 2002 to
promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to
provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes. The E-Government Act
of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921, Dec. 17,
2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment
for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains,
or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or
substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or
disseminate information as a result of this rule. Accordingly, NHTSA
has not conducted a privacy impact assessment.
[[Page 17156]]
Executive Order 13132; Federalism Summary Impact Statement
NHTSA has examined this rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255; Aug. 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 rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement. The rule does 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.'' NHTSA
rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption
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 by Congress that
preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law
address the same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]compliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules--even if not expressly preempted.
This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the
existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher
standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment
against the manufacturer--notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance
with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an
FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action
that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict
does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum
and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of action is
preempted impliedly. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.
861 (2000).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, NHTSA has considered whether
this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action.
The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this rule and
does not foresee any potential State requirements that might conflict
with it. NHTSA does not intend that this rule preempt state tort law
that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle
manufacturers than that established by this rule. Establishment of a
higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the
standards in this rule. Without any conflict, there could not be any
implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this rule
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Pursuant to 49 CFR 1.81, the Secretary has
delegated the ``functions'' under NEPA to the Administrators ``as they
relate to the matters within the primary responsibility of each
Operating Administration.'' NHTSA has determined that this rule is
categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4). Categorical
exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA procedures that
do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and
therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or
environmental impact statement (EIS).\44\ This rulemaking, which
responds to petitions for consideration on NHTSA's final seat belt
reminder systems rule issued in January 2025, is categorically excluded
pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4): ``Planning and administrative
activities that do not involve or lead directly to construction, such
as: Training, technical assistance and research; promulgation of rules,
regulations, directives, or program guidance; approval of project
concepts; engineering; and operating assistance to transit authorities
to continue existing service or increase service to meet routine
demand.'' NHTSA does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and
there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with
this rulemaking.
Executive Order 12988 (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) specifies clearly
the preemptive effect; (2) specifies clearly the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies clearly the retroactive effect, if any; (5) defines key
terms adequately; 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.
NHTSA has reviewed this rulemaking and determined that this
rulemaking action conforms to the applicable standards in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The issue of
preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. 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.
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.'' Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as SAE (formerly, the
Society of Automotive Engineers). The NTTAA
[[Page 17157]]
directs this agency to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when
the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards. NHTSA is not aware of any voluntary standards that
exist regarding the seat belt warnings in this rule.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and E.O. 13563 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 stated clearly?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is
not 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?
NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain
language in writing this rule. Please inform the agency if you can
suggest how NHTSA can improve its use of plain language.
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
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. To facilitate comment tracking and response, we
encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their
organization; however, submission of names is completely optional.
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.). For information on DOT's
compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
Congressional Review Act
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, NHTSA will submit to Congress a report
regarding the issuance of this interim final rule prior to the
effective date set forth at the outset of this interim final rule. The
report will state that it has been determined that this interim final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VII. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the Docket, please include the docket
number indicated in this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and
copy certain portions of your submissions.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, for substantive
data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the
information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality
Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines
in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish the Docket to notify you upon its receipt of your
comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, the Docket will
return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
You should submit a redacted ``public version'' of your comment
(including redacted versions of any additional documents or
attachments) to the docket using any of the methods identified under
ADDRESSES. This ``public version'' of your comment should contain only
the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and
from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed
has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to do
this.
You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment
directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential
treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth
the information specified in part 512. This includes the materials for
which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in more detail
below); supporting information, pursuant to Sec. 512.8; and a
certificate, pursuant to Sec. 512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A.
You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
unredacted ``confidential version'' of the information for which you
are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.6, the words
``ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' or ``CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS'' (as applicable) must
appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be
confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the
page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information
for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: ``[ ].''
You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
redacted ``public version'' of the information for which you are
seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.5(a)(2), the
redacted ``public version'' should include redactions of any
information for which you are seeking confidential treatment (i.e., the
only information that should be unredacted is information for which you
are not seeking confidential treatment).
NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable
method for submitting confidential business information to the agency
under part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for
confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be
sent to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at
[email protected]. You may either submit your request via email
or request a secure file transfer link. Manufacturers or any companies
that already have a Confidential Business Information (CBI) Portal
account or an Enterprise Account with
[[Page 17158]]
NHTSA should use the CBI Portal for their submission. If you submit a
CBI request, please also email a courtesy copy of the request to John
Piazza at [email protected].
Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after
that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider
in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will
consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking
action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
set forth below.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
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 1.95.
0
2. Amend Sec. 571.208 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs S4.1.5.7 and S4.1.5.7.1;
0
b. Adding paragraph S4.1.5.7.2;
0
c. Removing paragraphs S4.1.5.8 and S4.1.5.8.1;
0
d. Revising paragraphs S4.2.8 and S4.2.8.1;
0
e. Adding paragraph S4.2.8.2;
0
f. Removing paragraphs S4.2.9 and S4.2.9.1;
0
g. Revising paragraphs S4.4.3.4 and S4.4.3.4.1;
0
h. Adding paragraph S4.4.3.4.2;
0
i. Removing paragraphs S4.4.3.5 and S4.4.3.5.1; and
0
j. Revising paragraphs S7.5 introductory text, S7.5(b)(1)(v),
S7.5(b)(2)(ii), S7.5(c)(2), and S7.5(c)(3)(iv).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
* * * * *
S4.1.5.7. Seat belt warnings for passenger cars manufactured on or
after September 1, 2028.
S4.1.5.7.1 Any front outboard designated seating position and any
front inboard designated seating position for which a seat belt warning
is required in S4.1.5.6 shall comply with S7.5 of this standard.
S4.1.5.7.2. All rear designated seating positions, except in law
enforcement vehicles, shall comply with S7.5 of this standard.
* * * * *
S4.2.8 Seat belt warnings for trucks and multipurpose passenger
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2028 with a GVWR of
4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
S4.2.8.1. Any front outboard designated seating position certified
to a compliance option requiring a seat belt and any front inboard
designated seating position for which a seat belt warning is required
by S4.2.6.4 shall comply with S7.5 of this standard.
S4.2.8.2. All rear designated seating positions certified to a
compliance option requiring a seat belt, except for ambulances, as
defined by FMVSS No. 201 (Sec. 571.201), and law enforcement vehicles,
shall comply with S7.5 of this standard.
* * * * *
S4.4.3.4 Seat belt warnings for buses manufactured on or after
September 1, 2028 with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
S4.4.3.4.1 All front outboard designated seating positions and any
front inboard designated seating position for which a seat belt warning
is required by S4.2.6.4 shall comply with S7.5 of this standard.
S4.4.3.4.2 All rear designated seating positions certified to a
compliance option requiring a seat belt, except for school buses and
law enforcement vehicles, shall comply with S7.5 of this standard.
* * * * *
S7.5 Seat belt warning systems for vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2028 provided in accordance with the requirements
S4.1.5.7, S4.2.8, and S4.4.3.4 of this standard.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) For a visual warning associated with multiple front outboard
seats, the visual warning must use supplementary symbols, words, or
abbreviations to indicate the seating positions for which the warnings
are intended.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The audible warning must continue for at least 30 seconds,
until the seat belt that triggered the warning is in use, until the
seat is no longer occupied, or until the second-phase warning
activates. The audible warning may be paused during the activation of
another audible safety warning that is designed to alert the driver to
take immediate action, but the seat belt audible warning must be
resumed for the remainder of the required duration after the other
audible warning deactivates.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Change-of-status warning. An audio-visual warning indicating
how many or which rear seat belts have undergone a change of status
from in use to not in use must activate when the status of any rear
seat belt changes from in use to not in use and the vehicle is in
either forward or reverse drive mode, unless any rear door is open. The
warning must continue for at least 30 seconds, until the seat belt that
triggered the warning is in use, until the vehicle is stopped and no
longer in forward or reverse drive mode, or until any rear door is
opened. The warning may deactivate if the system is able to determine
that the number of seat belts in use is restored and all the doors
remained closed, or if the system is able to determine that the seating
position that triggered the warning is no longer occupied.
(3) * * *
(iv) The change-of-status warning may use the same visual warning
as the start of trip warning, provided that the color of an illuminated
symbol or number, used to indicate to the driver how many or which rear
seat belts have undergone a change of status from in use to not in use
is red.
* * * * *
[[Page 17159]]
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Jonathan Morrison,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-06614 Filed 4-3-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P