[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 19, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27203-27206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12628]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 99-5682]
RIN 2127-AG48
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assemblies
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA is deleting the provision in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt
Assemblies, requiring that the lap belt portion of a safety belt system
be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions. NHTSA has
concluded retention of this requirement is unnecessary since provisions
in Standard No. 209, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and
Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, together require
pelvic restraint. Further, those requirements are more readily
enforceable than the requirement being deleted from Standard No. 209.
Today's rule responds to a petition for rulemaking from the Association
of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM). It is also consistent
with the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, which directed
Federal agencies to identify and eliminate unnecessary Federal
Regulations.
DATES: This final rule is effective July 19, 1999. Petitions for
Reconsideration must be received by July 6, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Petitions should refer to the docket and notice number of
this notice and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC
20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For non-legal issues: Mr. John Lee, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-2264,
facsimile (202) 366-4329, electronic mail jlee@nhtsa.dot.gov.
For legal issues: Ms. Nicole H. Fradette, NCC-20, Rulemaking Division,
Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, telephone
(202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail
nfradette@nhtsa.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt
Assemblies, specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies, including
the pelvic restraint (i.e., lap belt) and the upper torso restraint
(i.e. shoulder belt). Other requirements address the release mechanism,
the attachment hardware, the adjustment, the webbing, the strap, and
marking and other informational instructions. NHTSA adopted Standard
No. 209 in 1967 as one of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety
standards (32 FR 2408, February 3, 1967).1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standard No. 209 was adopted from a Department of Commerce
standard (32 FR 2408, February 3, 1967), which was adopted from a
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard. (29 FR 16973,
December 11, 1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S4.1(b) Pelvic restraint of Standard No. 209 states:
A seat belt assembly shall provide pelvic restraint whether or
not upper torso restraint is provided, and the pelvic restraint
shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions,
including collision or roll-over of the motor vehicle. Pelvic
restraint of a Type 2 seat belt assembly that can be used without
upper torso restraint shall comply with requirement for Type 1 seat
belt assembly in S4.1 to S4.4.
Although the brief preamble of the notice establishing the standard and
paragraph S4.1(b) in 1967 did not discuss the purpose of that
paragraph, NHTSA regards the purpose of S4.1 (b) to be the reduction of
the likelihood of restrained occupants sliding forward and under a
fastened safety belt during a crash (referred to as submarining). It is
important that the lap belt remains on the pelvis so that the crash
forces transferred by a lap belt are imposed on the strong, bony pelvis
instead of the more vulnerable abdominal region.
II. NHTSA Response and Proposal
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on July 7, 1997
(62 FR 36251) 2 NHTSA proposed to delete S4.1(b). NHTSA
tentatively concluded that S4.1(b) was unclear and should either be
clarified or deleted. The agency explained that it was unclear how it
would determine that a lap belt complied with the Standard and was in
fact ``designed'' to remain on the pelvis. NHTSA raised the issue of
whether a
[[Page 27204]]
lap belt's failure to remain on the pelvis during a crash could be
sufficient to establish that the belt was not ``designed'' to remain on
the pelvis under all conditions. In addition, NHTSA noted that the
meaning of the words, ``remain on the pelvis,'' was unclear. The agency
also stated its belief that Standard No. 208, other provisions in
Standard No. 209, and Standard No. 210 contained more specific
requirements that collectively have the effect of requiring pelvic
restraint and thereby reducing the likelihood of occupants submarining
during a crash. NHTSA tentatively concluded the requirement appeared to
be unnecessary and unenforceable and was an appropriate candidate for
deletion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The NPRM was issued in response to a May 24, 1996 petition
for rulemaking from the Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM). AIAM petitioned NHTSA to delete S4.1(b)
of Standard No. 209. AIAM stated that the phrase ``designed to
remain on the pelvis under all conditions'' was redundant of other,
more specific and more stringent requirements in Standard No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, and Standard No. 210,
Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which already provide specific
requirements that affect pelvic restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Response to the NPRM
NHTSA received nine comments in response to the NPRM. General
Motors Corporation (GM), Mercedes Benz, Automotive Occupant Restraint
Council (AORC), Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
(AIAM), Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler), Ford Motor Company (Ford), and
Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VW) all favored the agency's proposal to
delete S4.1(b) from Standard 209. Advocates for Highway Safety
(Advocates) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) opposed
it.
General Motors stated that it is unclear how compliance with S4.1
(b) is to be evaluated as no test has ever been conceived for this
purpose. GM also stated that Standards No. 208, 209 and 210 provide
adequate and more readily enforceable requirements for pelvic
restraint. Mercedes Benz stated that its crash data demonstrate that
other requirements in Standards No. 209 and 210 cause the lap belt to
be designed to remain on the pelvis in real world crashes and thus
reduce the likelihood of occupant submarining. AORC argued that S4.1
(b) is redundant and has little effect in comparison to other more
specific and more stringent requirements in Standards No. 210, 208 and
209. AIAM also argued that there is no need for S4.1(b) in light of
other provisions in other standards. Chrysler stated that deleting
S4.1(b) would not adversely affect safety. Ford argued that S4.1(b) is
not stated in objective terms and, as GM did, stated that there was no
means to measure performance under that paragraph. Ford suggested that
NHTSA cooperate with Transport Canada in developing a computer model
for belt fit evaluation or harmonization. Volkswagen also stated that
S4.1 (b) is redundant, unclear and lacks objectivity.
Advocates opposed deleting S4.1(b) from Standard 209. Advocates
stated that it did not believe that the pelvic restraint requirement is
unclear or that other provisions in the safety standards render S4.1(b)
redundant. Advocates argued that rather than deleting the provision,
NHTSA should clarify it by deleting the words ``be designed to'' from
S4.1(b). The NTSB expressed concern that deleting S4.1(b) would
adversely affect safety by deleting, what it believed to be, the only
performance standard for seat belt restraint systems covering occupants
other than 50th percentile adult males. NTSB argued that S4.1(b) should
be retained until a more effective performance standard is in place to
protect a larger segment of the traveling public.
IV. Agency Decision and Response to Comments
NHTSA adopted Standard No. 209 in 1967 along with several other
standards as part of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. As stated earlier in this notice, NHTSA regards S4.1(b) of
the standard as being intended to reduce the risk of occupant
submarining by requiring that the lap belt remains on the pelvis during
a crash.
NHTSA has concluded that S4.1(b) is unnecessary because
subsequently adopted provisions in Standard No. 208 and Standard No.
210, and other provisions in Standard No. 209, contain more specific
requirements that collectively achieve the same objective for a broad
category of vehicle occupants. These provisions regulate the primary
aspects of lap belt design and performance that affect the likelihood
of occupant submarining. Specifically, they regulate belt angle,
adjustment, fit, and the amount of slack in the belt.
Standards No. 208 and 209 address seat belt fit and adjustment by
requiring seat belts to fit a wide range of vehicle occupants. In 1971,
NHTSA amended the fitting provisions in Standard No. 208 to specify
that the lap belt portion of the safety belt must fit persons from a
six-year-old child to a 95th percentile adult male.3 NHTSA
also amended Standard No. 209 in 1971 to specify that lap and shoulder
belts must be capable of fitting persons from a fifth percentile adult
female to a 95th percentile adult male.4 NTSB is, therefore,
incorrect when it states that S4.1(b) is the only requirement for seat
belt restraint systems covering occupants other than 50th percentile
adult males. Both Standard No. 208 and Standard No. 209 require seat
belt restraint systems to fit occupants other than 50th percentile
adult males.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ S7.1 of Standard No. 208 states:
``Adjustment. S7.1.1 Except as specified in S7.1.1.1 and S
7.1.1.2, the lap belt of any seat belt assembly furnished in
accordance with S4.1.2 shall adjust by means of any emergency-
locking retractor or automatic locking retractor that conforms to
Sec. 571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a
50th percentile 6-year-old to those of a 95th percentile adult male
. . .''
\4\ S4.1 of Standard No. 209 states:
``(g) Adjustment. (1) A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly
shall be capable of adjustment to fit occupants whose dimensions and
weight range from those of 5th percentile adult female to those of
95th-percentile adult male.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to improve belt performance and reduce the potential of
submarining, NHTSA amended S4.3.1 of Standard No. 210 in 1990 to
increase the minimum lap belt angle from 20 degrees to 30 degrees. (55
FR 17970, April 30, 1990) As amended, S4.3.1 requires that the lap belt
angle, measured from the seating reference point to either the
anchorage or the point where the safety belt contacts the seat frame,
must be between 30 and 75 degrees. NHTSA amended the requirement after
agency research using test dummies demonstrated that increasing the
angle of the lap belt reduced the potential for occupant
submarining.5 The possibility of submarining increases as
the line of the lap belt approaches the horizontal (i.e., as the belt
angle decreases). Too shallow a belt angle results in insufficient
downward force to resist the upward motion of the lap belt that occurs
in a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Rear Seat Submarining Investigation,'' DOT HS 807-347, May
1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The potential for occupant submarining is also affected by the
amount of slack in a lap belt. An occupant is at a greater risk of
submarining if a lap belt fits loosely around the occupant. The
potential for occupant submarining, therefore, rises as the amount of
slack in the belt increases. To help prevent belt webbing from playing
out in a crash, NHTSA amended Standard No. 209 in 1971 to require that
an emergency-locking retractor lock before the webbing extends one inch
when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7g.6
This provision lowers the risk of occupant submarining by controlling
[[Page 27205]]
the amount of slack that may be introduced into the belt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ S4.3 (j) of Standard No. 209 states:
``(j) Emergency-locking retractor. An emergency-locking
retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)--
(1) Shall lock before the webbing extends 1 inch when the
retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7g.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has concluded that the comfort and fit provisions in
Standards No. 208 and 209, together with the lap belt angle in Standard
No. 210, and the emergency-locking retractor provisions in Standard No.
209 provide assurance that the lap belt limits the likelihood of
occupant submarining. NHTSA believes that these provisions collectively
provide the necessary specifications to assure pelvic restraint and
that retention of S4.1(b) is therefore unnecessary.
Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform
to NHTSA's safety standards before they can be offered for sale.
Compliance with the safety standards is required up to the first sale
for purposes other than resale. NHTSA conducts vehicle testing of new
vehicles to determine a manufacturer's compliance with the safety
standards. Manufacturers must exercise due care to assure that any
vehicle or equipment item will comply with the safety standards when
tested by NHTSA. Manufacturers must know how NHTSA plans to test
compliance with a particular standard if they are to ensure that their
vehicles comply.
Since NHTSA does not have a test procedure to determine a
manufacturer's compliance with S4.1(b), the provision is not readily
enforceable. Further, NHTSA does not agree with Advocates that a
repeatable, practicable test could be devised to determine compliance
with the provision. The provision makes no specific reference to a
particular test speed or type of collision. Even if it were feasible to
develop dynamic tests that incorporated all crash conditions, for
example, from a 90 mph head-on collision to a 20 mph rollover, NHTSA
does not believe that such a requirement would be practicable. More
importantly, in light of the provisions cited above in Standard Nos.
208, 209, and 210 that collectively provide the necessary
specifications to assure effective pelvic restraint, NHTSA does not
believe that developing a test procedure for S4.1(b) would yield
benefits.
Although the comments addressed the first sentence of S4.1(b), the
NPRM also proposed to delete the entire subsection, including the
requirement in the second sentence for the pelvic restraint portion of
a Type 2 seat belt assembly that can be used without the upper torso
restraint. This type of seat belt assembly is no longer permitted;
therefore, the requirement is no longer necessary and is being
rescinded.
In summary, NHTSA concludes that Standard No. 208, other provisions
in Standard No. 209, and Standard No. 210 contain more specific
requirements than S4.1(b) that collectively promote pelvic restraint
and reduce the likelihood of occupants submarining during a crash.
Further, these provisions all have established test procedures to
determine compliance and are readily enforceable. NHTSA concludes that
S4.1(b) is unnecessary and unenforceable and should be deleted. This
amendment will not adversely affect safety and is consistent with the
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.
V. 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. There are no apparent cost savings
or added costs. Deletion of this section is not expected to result in
any changes to seat belt system design or in any change in the amount
of testing by manufacturers. There are no apparent benefits (other than
the deletion of a requirement that does not add to safety) or any
negative results. Deletion of this section will not result in any
design or performance changes for motor vehicle restraints.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I hereby certify
that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for
the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The final rule primarily affects
passenger car, light truck, and multipurpose passenger vehicle
manufacturers. The Small Business Administration's size standards (13
CFR part 121) are organized according to Standard Industrial
Classification Codes (SIC). SIC Code 3711 ``Motor Vehicles and
Passenger Car Bodies'' has a small business size standard of 1,000
employees or fewer.
This final rule applies to the previously described vehicle
manufacturers regardless of size. This final rule does not require and
will not result in any vehicle design changes. This final rule deletes
certain requirements and does not require any changes to the seat belt
system. The changes will not affect the cost of new vehicles.
Paperwork Reduction Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and determined that it will not impose any
information collection requirements as that term is defined by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320.
The National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this rule under the National Environmental
Policy Act and determined that it will have no significant impact on
the human environment.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4)
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually. However, the incremental manufacturer costs
for this final rule are estimated to be zero.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
The agency has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles
and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has determined
that this rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule does not have any retroactive effect. NHTSA is not aware
of any state law that is preempted by this rule. This rule does not
repeal any existing Federal law or regulation. It modifies existing law
only to the extent that it deletes the requirement which specifies that
the lap belt portion of a safety belt system be designed to remain on
the pelvis under all conditions. This rule does not require submission
of a petition for reconsideration or the initiation of other
administrative proceedings before a party may file suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as
follows:
[[Page 27206]]
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 571.209 [Amended]
2. Section 571.209 is amended by removing and reserving S4.1(b).
Issued on: May 14, 1999.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-12628 Filed 5-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
