[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 146 (Monday, July 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39432-39434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19068]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 99]
RIN 2127-AG24
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a petition from the Ford Motor Company, this
document proposes a limited extension of the compliance date of a
recent rule improving safety belt fit by requiring that Type 2 safety
belts installed for adjustable seats in vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less either be integrated with
the vehicle seat or be equipped with a means of adjustability to
improve the fit and increase the comfort of the belt for a variety of
different sized occupants. The extension would apply only to trucks
with a GVWR of more than 8,500 pounds.
DATES: Comment Date: Comments must be received by September 12, 1996.
Proposed Effective Date: If adopted, the proposed amendments would
become effective September 1, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.)
[[Page 39433]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590:
For non-legal issues: Clarke Harper, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, NPS-11, telephone (202) 366-2264, facsimile (202) 366-4329,
electronic mail ``[email protected]''.
For legal issues: Edward Glancy, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail
``[email protected]''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 3, 1994, NHTSA published a final
rule amending Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to improve
safety belt fit and thus the rate of belt use by requiring that Type 2
safety belts installed for adjustable seats in vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less either be
integrated with the vehicle seat or be equipped with a means of
adjustability to improve the fit and increase the comfort of the belt
for a variety of different sized occupants (59 FR 39472). The final
rule specified that this amendment become effective September 1, 1997.
On December 22, 1995, the Ford Motor Company (Ford) petitioned the
agency to extend the effective date of this new requirement for
vehicles with a GVWR between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds. Ford requested
that the effective date be extended to January 1, 1998.
In its petition, Ford stated that, due to unexpected developmental
problems with a new truck platform, it will be unable to begin
production by September 1, 1997 as expected. Therefore, it will be
necessary to continue to produce the current truck platform it will
replace for four months beyond the effective date of the new belt fit
requirement. Ford requested the leadtime extension to avoid having to
redesign the existing platform for only a four-month production.
In its petition, Ford stated that the extension would affect 45,000
F-series pickup trucks. The GVWRs of these vehicles are between 8,500
and 10,000 pounds. Because Ford comprises approximately 45 percent of
the light truck market, NHTSA estimates that the requested leadtime
extension would affect a total of 100,000 vehicles. These trucks
include cargo vans, pick-ups and incomplete vehicles. Ford stated that
redesign of this limited number of vehicles to meet the September 1,
1997 effective date would cost $4.5 million, resulting in a per vehicle
cost of $100. In the final rule, NHTSA estimated that the belt fit
requirement would cost $5.51 per light truck. For NHTSA cost estimates,
the development and certification costs are amortized over the lifetime
of the redesigned model, which usually results in a low per vehicle
cost.
Ford argued that the driver population of the affected vehicles is
predominantly male and is less in need of belt fit adjustability than
the driver population of the average vehicle. In support of this
argument, Ford said that two-thirds of the affected vehicles are
commercial vehicles (a large percentage of which are driven by males)
and that 92 percent of the remaining one-third are driven also by
males. Ford also noted that males tend to be taller than females, and
improved belt fit is primarily intended to benefit shorter occupants.
After reviewing the petition, NHTSA has decided to propose to
extend the effective date of the belt fit requirement until January 1,
1998 for trucks with a GVWR of more than 8,500 pounds. The reasons for
this proposal are explained below.
NHTSA has examined the demographics of the occupants of the
affected trucks, and agrees that the occupants of the affected trucks
are more likely to be male and thus larger than those of the lower GVWR
vehicles, and therefore their rate of belt use would be less likely to
be affected by improvements in belt fit. Accordingly, the benefits from
applying the belt fit requirement to those trucks would be less than
the benefits of applying it to lower GVWR vehicles. An examination of
1993 through 1994 National Accident Sampling System (NASS) files shows
that the mean value of occupant size was two inches taller for trucks
affected by the Ford petition. In addition, for trucks below an
unloaded weight of 5,500 pounds (approximately equal to 8,500 pounds
GVWR), 12 percent of front seat occupants are under 5 feet 2 inches,
while for trucks over 5,500 pounds unloaded weight, only six percent of
front seat occupants are below this height.
In the final rule, NHTSA characterized the anticipated benefits of
the belt fit requirement as follows:
NHTSA believes that some occupants who find their safety belts
to be uncomfortable react to their discomfort either by wearing
their safety belts incorrectly or by not wearing them at all. NHTSA
believes that improving safety belt fit will encourage the correct
use of safety belts and could increase the overall safety belt usage
rate. (59 FR 39472, at 39473)
As noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding the final
rule, complaints concerning belt fit received by the agency are often
from shorter adults. (59 FR 21740, 21741; April 26, 1994) If the
majority of the occupants of the trucks affected by the Ford petition
are not in the group of people who most often report complaints with
belt fit, there would be less opportunity to increase belt usage
through improved belt fit.
Based on the Final Regulatory Evaluation of the safety belt fit
rule (Docket 74-14, Notice 91), the potential maximum benefits for
light trucks was 9 fatalities and 102 injuries per year, based on an
annual production of 3.4 million vehicles. The estimated affected
population for this proposal is 100,000 vehicles, therefore, the
potential reduction in benefits would be 0.3 fatalities and 3 injuries
per year. In addition, if Ford's argument that the affected vehicles
are not widely used by persons who benefit from the belt fit rule is
accurate, the potential reduction in benefits would be even less.
Finally, as noted in the Ford petition, the economic impact of
requiring Ford to go ahead and comply would be much greater than the
costs anticipated by the agency for compliance with the belt fit
requirement. Using NHTSA's estimated per vehicle costs, the cost
savings resulting from not requiring the 100,000 light trucks to comply
would be $551,000 to $745,000, not counting redesign costs for the Ford
vehicles that would shortly be taken off the market. If one were to
accept Ford's estimation of $100 per vehicle cost savings for its
45,000 vehicles plus NHTSA's estimation of $5.51 to $7.45 per vehicle
cost savings for the remaining 55,000 vehicles, the total estimated
cost reduction would be $4.8 to $4.9 million.
Because the safety benefits for the affected trucks are likely to
be very small, and the costs accentuated, a four-month extension of
leadtime would be reasonable.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under E.O.
12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been determined to
be not ``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures. As explained earlier, the agency
estimates a cost savings of $4.8 to $4.9 million.
Regulatory Flexibility Act: NHTSA has also considered the impacts
of this
[[Page 39434]]
notice under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As explained above, NHTSA does
not anticipate a significant economic impact on any manufacturer from
this proposal. For consumers, granting this extension would slightly
reduce the cost of these trucks, especially the Ford trucks, compared
to their cost if the extension is not granted.
Paperwork Reduction Act: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-511), there are no requirements for information
collection associated with this proposed rule.
National Environmental Policy Act: NHTSA has also analyzed this
proposed rule under the National Environmental Policy Act and
determined that it would not have a significant impact on the human
environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism): NHTSA has analyzed this
proposal in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in
E.O. 12612, and has determined that this proposed rule would not have
significant federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform: This proposed rule would not have any
retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain
a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is
not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the
state requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies
only to vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets
forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing,
amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That
section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration
or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in
court.
Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR part
571 be amended as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 would continue
to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.208 would be amended by revising S7.1.2 and adding a
new S7.1.2.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.
* * * * *
7.1.2 Except as provided in S7.1.2.1, S7.1.2.2, and S7.1.2.3, for
each Type 2 seat belt assembly which is required by Standard No. 208
(49 CFR 571.208), the upper anchorage, or the lower anchorage nearest
the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt, shall include a
movable component which has a minimum of two adjustment positions. The
distance between the geometric center of the movable component at the
two extreme adjustment positions shall be not less than five
centimeters, measured linearly. If the component required by this
paragraph must be manually moved between adjustment positions,
information shall be provided in the owner's manual to explain how to
adjust the seat belt and warn that misadjustment could reduce the
effectiveness of the safety belt in a crash.
* * * * *
S7.1.2.3 The requirements of S7.1.2 do not apply to any truck with
a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 8,500 pounds manufactured
before January 1, 1998.
* * * * *
Issued on July 22, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-19068 Filed 7-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P