Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection, 6777-6779 [05-2469]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
sector licensees with respect to
reimbursement, NTIA is repealing its
regulations.
To the extent that NTIA must take
action to implement the new
reimbursement and relocation plan with
respect to federal agencies, it will do so
in consultation with the
Interdepartment Radio Advisory
Committee (IRAC),4 the Federal
Communications Commission, and the
Office of Management and Budget. Any
procedures developed during that
process will appear in the NTIA Manual
of Regulations and Procedures for
Federal Radio Frequency Management,
which provides the rules governing
federal agencies’ use of the radio
spectrum.5
III. Other Information
The Commercial Spectrum
Enhancement Act repeals the statutory
authorization for the Mandatory
Reimbursement Rules thereby
eliminating NTIA’s authority to
implement these rules. Thus, NTIA
must repeal these rules. Under these
circumstances, providing prior notice
and an opportunity for public comment
on whether to repeal these rules would
serve no useful purpose. As a result,
under authority at 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B),
NTIA finds good cause to waive such
procedures. Moreover, the rules have
not been utilized since their
promulgation, and thus, no federal
agency’s or private sector entity’s
interest will be adversely affected by
their repeal. Further, and for the same
reason, NTIA finds good cause pursuant
to 553(d)(3) to waive the requirement of
a 30-day delay in effect for this rule.
Thus, this rule is effective February 9,
2005.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
As prior notice and an opportunity for
public comment are not required under
5 U.S.C. § 553 or any other law, the
analytical requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act are
inapplicable. Thus, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required and none
has been prepared.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action contains no collections of
information. Therefore, clearance by the
Office of Management and Budget under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is
not required.
Lists of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 301
Classified information,
Communications common carriers,
Communications equipment, Defense
communications, Federal buildings and
facilities, Radio, Satellites,
Telecommunications.
PART 301—[REMOVED AND
RESERVED]
For the reasons stated above, 47 CFR
Chapter III is amended by removing and
reserving Part 301 pursuant to authority
contained in Pub. L. No. 108–494.
Dated: February 4, 2005.
Michael D. Gallagher,
Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–2514 Filed 2–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–60–S
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Executive Order 12866
[Docket No. NHTSA 2004–18905; Notice 2]
The repeal of the Mandatory
Reimbursement Rules is not a
significant regulatory action as defined
by Executive Order 12866.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
Executive Order 13312
The repeal of the Mandatory
Reimbursement Rules do not contain
policies with federalism implications
sufficient to warrant preparation of a
federalism assessment under Executive
Order 12612.
4 The IRAC is an advisory commmittee comprised
of the federal agencies using the radio spectrum.
The IRAC provides spectrum management advice
and support to the Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information and NTIA
Administrator.
5 The NTIA Manual is available on NTIA’s
website at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/
redbook/redbook.html.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:47 Feb 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Response to petitions for
reconsideration.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice denies petitions
for reconsideration submitted by the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
(Alliance) of the August 20, 2004, final
rule on advanced air bag provisions in
the occupant crash protection standard.
We are denying the first petition
because it references a test procedure
that the agency has not yet proposed, for
which an effective date will be proposed
when a Lower Anchors and Tethers for
Children (LATCH) seat installation
procedure is published. We are denying
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6777
the second petition because we have
previously responded to the same issue
and no new data have been presented.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues: Louis Molino, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, at (202)
366–2264. Fax: (202) 493–2739. For
legal issues: Christopher Calamita,
Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 366–
2992. Fax: (202) 366–3820. You may
send mail to these officials at the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
A. Effective Date Revision—Appendix A
B. Future Appendix A Revisions
III. Response to Petitions
A. Effective Date Revision—Appendix A
B. Future Appendix A Revisions
IV. Conclusion
I. Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant
crash protection, specifies performance
requirements for the protection of
vehicle occupants in crashes (49 CFR
571.208). On May 12, 2000, we
published an interim final rule that
amended FMVSS No. 208 to require
advanced air bags (65 FR 30680; Docket
No. NHTSA 00–7013; Notice 1)
(Advanced Air Bag Rule). Among other
things, the rule addressed the risk of
serious air bag-induced injuries,
particularly for small women and young
children, and amended FMVSS No. 208
to require that future air bags be
designed to minimize such risk. The
Advanced Air Bag Rule established a
rigid barrier crash test with a 5th
percentile adult female test dummy, as
well as several low risk deployment and
out-of-position (OOP) tests using a range
of dummy sizes and a number of
specified child restraint systems (CRSs).
The agency received multiple
petitions for reconsideration to the
Advanced Air Bag Rule. Petitioners
raised a large number of concerns about
the various test procedures in their
written submissions. To address these
issues adequately, the agency held a
technical workshop so that we could
better understand the specific concerns
and better determine if the test
procedures needed refinement.1 The
1 The workshop was held on December 6, 2000,
at NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Test Center in
East Liberty, Ohio. Representatives of 18 vehicle
manufacturers and 13 seat, sensor, and dummy
manufacturers attended the workshop. Five
different vehicles were used as test vehicles. Some
of the five had been provided by manufacturers
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
Continued
09FER1
6778
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
agency then addressed each petition in
a Federal Register notice published on
December 18, 2001, and made several
changes to the Advanced Air Bag Rule
(66 FR 65376; Docket No. NHTSA 01–
11110). These changes included a
number of refinements to the test
dummy positioning procedures in the
barrier tests and the low risk
deployment tests. The December 2001
final rule also amended the list of CRSs
contained in Appendix A by removing
from the list CRSs no longer in
production, and adding other CRSs.
On November 19, 2003, the agency
published a final rule that responded, in
part, to petitions for reconsideration of
the amendments made in the December
2001 final rule (68 FR 65179; Docket No.
NHTSA 03–16476, Notice 1). Various
seat and dummy positioning procedures
were amended. The November 19, 2003,
final rule also amended the list of CRSs
in Appendix A. Specifically, effective
September 1, 2004, we removed three
rear-facing CRSs from Subpart B of the
appendix and added two LATCH
compliant CRSs to Subpart C. The
preamble to the final rule also addressed
the issue of lead time for changes to
Appendix A.
On August 20, 2004, the agency
published a final rule that responded to
petitions for reconsideration of the
amendments made in the November 19,
2003, final rule (69 FR 51598; Docket
No. NHTSA 04–18905). The majority of
the petitions were denied. However, we
clarified two detailed points related to
dummy positioning in OOP tests and
extended the effective date for the
LATCH seats added to Appendix A to
September 1, 2006.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
A. Effective Date Revision—Appendix A
The Alliance petitioned ‘‘NHTSA to
provide at least 1-year of lead time
between the issuance of a compliance
test procedure and the effective date of
changes to Appendix A that would add
child restraints equipped with LATCH
lower attachments.’’ While the Alliance
strongly supports the development of a
procedure for the installation of LATCH
seats, as stated in the Alliance petition
on the November 19, 2003, final rule, it
contended that ‘‘artificially tight
installations of LATCH equipped child
restraints in a compliance test could
cause some occupant classification
systems to misclassify the child restraint
(but not in typical real-world usage).’’
The petition stated that ‘‘vehicle
manufacturers and their suppliers need
substantial lead-time to evaluate their
because they were experiencing particular problems
with the existing test procedures in those vehicles.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:47 Feb 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
systems and potentially redesign and
incorporate into production suppression
systems that can meet the test
procedures that are to be developed.’’
B. Future Appendix A Revisions
In addition, the Alliance petitioned
NHTSA to provide at least two years of
lead time for any future revisions to
Appendix A. The Alliance expects that
there will be a major update of the
Appendix to add many LATCHequipped CRSs. The Alliance stated that
‘‘at least 2-years of lead time would help
vehicle manufacturers and their
suppliers to design and develop
suppression systems that will meet the
LATCH compliance test procedures that
are to be developed.’’
III. Response to Petitions
A. Effective Date Revision—Appendix A
We are denying the Alliance petition
for one year of lead time between the
issuance of a LATCH CRS installation
compliance test procedure and the
effective date of changes to Appendix A
that would add CRSs equipped with
LATCH lower attachments. In the
August 20, 2004, final rule (69 FR
51598) the agency stated:
To ensure the robustness of automatic
suppression systems, a manufacturer must be
able to certify that the system operates under
conditions representative of real world use.
This includes operation when used with CRS
designs that have been sold for almost two
years. However, as the Alliance noted, the
agency does not yet have a compliance test
procedure in place for testing seats installed
by means of the LATCH anchorages.
Therefore, the effective date for the LATCH
equipped CRSs in Appendix A is extended
until September 1, 2006. By that time, the
agency will have developed a compliance
test procedure for securing a LATCHequipped CRS to a vehicle using the lower
anchor attachments.
We are denying the petition because
it presupposes that the agency will not
publish a test procedure in a time
sufficient to allow ample notice and
lead time. When the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for the LATCH
procedure is issued, the agency will
have an opportunity to propose an
effective date of the procedure or of the
CRSs to which the procedure would
apply. To do this in advance of the
NPRM publication is premature.
B. Future Appendix A Revisions
We are also denying the Alliance
petition to provide at least two years of
lead time for any future proposed
revisions to Appendix A. In the
December 18, 2001, final rule we noted
that, generally, a 1-year lead time will
be provided for amendments to
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Appendix A, but stressed the
importance of establishing a list that is
representative of real world usage (66
FR 65390). In response to the December
18, 2001, final rule, Mitsubishi
petitioned the agency for a 2-year lead
time for additions to Appendix A. In the
preamble to the November 19, 2003,
final rule the agency provided an
extensive discussion of the lead time for
additions to Appendix A (68 FR 65188).
Additionally, the one year lead time is
consistent with the agency’s intent that
occupant detection systems be robust and
able to detect any CRS, including those that
are relatively new to the market. However, in
recognition that manufacturers need to know
what CRSs will be included as they design
their new models, we have decided to
slightly change our position on lead time by
making any changes to Appendix A effective
for the next model year introduced one year
after publication of the final rule modifying
Appendix A. (Consistent with our past
practice, for this purpose, the model year
begins on September 1 of the prior calendar
year.) This will result in a one to two year
lead time. For example, if Appendix A were
updated March 1, 2004, the revised appendix
would become effective September 1, 2005,
a period of eighteen months after publication.
We believe this approach will allow
manufacturers to tie their certification to the
automatic suppression requirements with the
introduction of a new model year.
Therefore, the agency has committed
to providing at least one year of lead
time, plus any additional time up to the
next September 1st, so as to have the
requirements to assure compliance
using the new CRSs become effective at
the beginning of a model year. The
current petition for reconsideration for
two years of lead time provides no new
information that would cause the
agency to reconsider our position on
this issue.
IV. Conclusion
NHTSA received two petitions for
reconsideration to the August 20, 2004,
FMVSS No. 208 final rule from the
Alliance. The Alliance requested that
any lead time between the issuance of
a compliance test procedure to install
LATCH seats and the effective date of
changes to Appendix A be at least one
year. They further requested a two year
lead time for any future revision to
Appendix A. We are denying these
petitions.
The first petition is denied as
premature, since the agency can and
will propose an appropriate lead time
when the LATCH test procedure is
published. The second petition is
denied because NHTSA addressed the
exact same issue in the preamble to the
November 19, 2003, final rule, and no
new data have been presented that
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
would lead us to change our previous
determination.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.
Issued on: February 3, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05–2469 Filed 2–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 229
[Docket No. 030221039–5025–18; I.D.
020205H]
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental
to Commercial Fishing Operations;
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction
Plan (ALWTRP)
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries (AA), NOAA, announces
temporary restrictions consistent with
the requirements of the ALWTRP’s
implementing regulations. These
regulations apply to lobster trap/pot and
anchored gillnet fishermen in an area
totaling approximately 1,415 square
nautical miles (nm2) (4,853.3 km2), east
of Portsmouth, NH for 15 days. The
purpose of this action is to provide
protection to an aggregation of North
Atlantic right whales (right whales).
DATES: Effective beginning at 0001 hours
February 11, 2005, through 2400 hours
February 25, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed and
final Dynamic Area Management (DAM)
rules, Environmental Assessments
(EAs), Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Team (ALWTRT) meeting
summaries, and progress reports on
implementation of the ALWTRP may
also be obtained by writing Diane
Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast Region,
One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA
01930.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diane Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast
Region, 978–281–9328 x6503; or Kristy
Long, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, 301–713–1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Several of the background documents
for the ALWTRP and the take reduction
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:47 Feb 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
planning process can be downloaded
from the ALWTRP web site at https://
www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/.
Background
The ALWTRP was developed
pursuant to section 118 of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to
reduce the incidental mortality and
serious injury of three endangered
species of whales (right, fin, and
humpback) due to incidental interaction
with commercial fishing activities. In
addition, the measures identified in the
ALWTRP would provide conservation
benefits to a fourth species (minke),
which are neither listed as endangered
nor threatened under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). The ALWTRP,
implemented through regulations
codified at 50 CFR 229.32, relies on a
combination of fishing gear
modifications and time/area closures to
reduce the risk of whales becoming
entangled in commercial fishing gear
(and potentially suffering serious injury
or mortality as a result).
On January 9, 2002, NMFS published
the final rule to implement the
ALWTRP’s DAM program (67 FR 1133).
On August 26, 2003, NMFS amended
the regulations by publishing a final
rule, which specifically identified gear
modifications that may be allowed in a
DAM zone (68 FR 51195). The DAM
program provides specific authority for
NMFS to restrict temporarily on an
expedited basis the use of lobster trap/
pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear in
areas north of 40° N. lat. to protect right
whales. Under the DAM program,
NMFS may: (1) require the removal of
all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet
fishing gear for a 15–day period; (2)
allow lobster trap/pot and anchored
gillnet fishing within a DAM zone with
gear modifications determined by NMFS
to sufficiently reduce the risk of
entanglement; and/or (3) issue an alert
to fishermen requesting the voluntary
removal of all lobster trap/pot and
anchored gillnet gear for a 15–day
period and asking fishermen not to set
any additional gear in the DAM zone
during the 15–day period.
A DAM zone is triggered when NMFS
receives a reliable report from a
qualified individual of three or more
right whales sighted within an area (75
nm2 (139 km2)) such that right whale
density is equal to or greater than 0.04
right whales per nm2 (1.85 km2). A
qualified individual is an individual
ascertained by NMFS to be reasonably
able, through training or experience, to
identify a right whale. Such individuals
include, but are not limited to, NMFS
staff, U.S. Coast Guard and Navy
personnel trained in whale
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6779
identification, scientific research survey
personnel, whale watch operators and
naturalists, and mariners trained in
whale species identification through
disentanglement training or some other
training program deemed adequate by
NMFS. A reliable report would be a
credible right whale sighting.
On January 30, 2005, an aerial survey
reported a sighting of four right whales
in the proximity 43°07′ N. lat. and
68°35′ W. long. This position lies east of
Portsmouth, NH. After conducting an
investigation, NMFS ascertained that
the report came from a qualified
individual and determined that the
report was reliable. Thus, NMFS has
received a reliable report from a
qualified individual of the requisite
right whale density to trigger the DAM
provisions of the ALWTRP.
Once a DAM zone is triggered, NMFS
determines whether to impose
restrictions on fishing and/or fishing
gear in the zone. This determination is
based on the following factors,
including but not limited to: the
location of the DAM zone with respect
to other fishery closure areas, weather
conditions as they relate to the safety of
human life at sea, the type and amount
of gear already present in the area, and
a review of recent right whale
entanglement and mortality data.
NMFS has reviewed the factors and
management options noted above
relative to the DAM under
consideration. As a result of this review,
NMFS prohibits lobster trap/pot and
anchored gillnet gear in this area during
the 15–day restricted period unless it is
modified in the manner described in
this temporary rule. The DAM zone is
bounded by the following coordinates:
43° 26′N., 69° 01′W. (NW Corner)
43° 26′N., 68° 10′W.
42° 48′N., 68° 10′W.
42° 48′N., 69° 01′W.
In addition to those gear
modifications currently implemented
under the ALWTRP at 50 CFR 229.32,
the following gear modifications are
required in the DAM zone. If the
requirements and exceptions for gear
modification in the DAM zone, as
described below, differ from other
ALWTRP requirements for any
overlapping areas and times, then the
more restrictive requirements will apply
in the DAM zone. Special note for
gillnet fisherman: A portion of this
DAM zone overlaps with the Northeast
multispecies’ Cashes Ledge Closure
Area and the Harbor Porpoise Take
Reduction Plan’s Offshore Closure Area.
This DAM action does not supersede the
multispecies closures found at 50 CFR
648.81 or the Harbor Porpoise Take
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 9, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6777-6779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2469]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2004-18905; Notice 2]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice denies petitions for reconsideration submitted by
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) of the August 20,
2004, final rule on advanced air bag provisions in the occupant crash
protection standard. We are denying the first petition because it
references a test procedure that the agency has not yet proposed, for
which an effective date will be proposed when a Lower Anchors and
Tethers for Children (LATCH) seat installation procedure is published.
We are denying the second petition because we have previously responded
to the same issue and no new data have been presented.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Louis Molino,
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202) 493-
2739. For legal issues: Christopher Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel,
at (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820. You may send mail to these
officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
A. Effective Date Revision--Appendix A
B. Future Appendix A Revisions
III. Response to Petitions
A. Effective Date Revision--Appendix A
B. Future Appendix A Revisions
IV. Conclusion
I. Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant
crash protection, specifies performance requirements for the protection
of vehicle occupants in crashes (49 CFR 571.208). On May 12, 2000, we
published an interim final rule that amended FMVSS No. 208 to require
advanced air bags (65 FR 30680; Docket No. NHTSA 00-7013; Notice 1)
(Advanced Air Bag Rule). Among other things, the rule addressed the
risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, particularly for small women
and young children, and amended FMVSS No. 208 to require that future
air bags be designed to minimize such risk. The Advanced Air Bag Rule
established a rigid barrier crash test with a 5th percentile adult
female test dummy, as well as several low risk deployment and out-of-
position (OOP) tests using a range of dummy sizes and a number of
specified child restraint systems (CRSs).
The agency received multiple petitions for reconsideration to the
Advanced Air Bag Rule. Petitioners raised a large number of concerns
about the various test procedures in their written submissions. To
address these issues adequately, the agency held a technical workshop
so that we could better understand the specific concerns and better
determine if the test procedures needed refinement.\1\ The
[[Page 6778]]
agency then addressed each petition in a Federal Register notice
published on December 18, 2001, and made several changes to the
Advanced Air Bag Rule (66 FR 65376; Docket No. NHTSA 01-11110). These
changes included a number of refinements to the test dummy positioning
procedures in the barrier tests and the low risk deployment tests. The
December 2001 final rule also amended the list of CRSs contained in
Appendix A by removing from the list CRSs no longer in production, and
adding other CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The workshop was held on December 6, 2000, at NHTSA's
Vehicle Research and Test Center in East Liberty, Ohio.
Representatives of 18 vehicle manufacturers and 13 seat, sensor, and
dummy manufacturers attended the workshop. Five different vehicles
were used as test vehicles. Some of the five had been provided by
manufacturers because they were experiencing particular problems
with the existing test procedures in those vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 19, 2003, the agency published a final rule that
responded, in part, to petitions for reconsideration of the amendments
made in the December 2001 final rule (68 FR 65179; Docket No. NHTSA 03-
16476, Notice 1). Various seat and dummy positioning procedures were
amended. The November 19, 2003, final rule also amended the list of
CRSs in Appendix A. Specifically, effective September 1, 2004, we
removed three rear-facing CRSs from Subpart B of the appendix and added
two LATCH compliant CRSs to Subpart C. The preamble to the final rule
also addressed the issue of lead time for changes to Appendix A.
On August 20, 2004, the agency published a final rule that
responded to petitions for reconsideration of the amendments made in
the November 19, 2003, final rule (69 FR 51598; Docket No. NHTSA 04-
18905). The majority of the petitions were denied. However, we
clarified two detailed points related to dummy positioning in OOP tests
and extended the effective date for the LATCH seats added to Appendix A
to September 1, 2006.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
A. Effective Date Revision--Appendix A
The Alliance petitioned ``NHTSA to provide at least 1-year of lead
time between the issuance of a compliance test procedure and the
effective date of changes to Appendix A that would add child restraints
equipped with LATCH lower attachments.'' While the Alliance strongly
supports the development of a procedure for the installation of LATCH
seats, as stated in the Alliance petition on the November 19, 2003,
final rule, it contended that ``artificially tight installations of
LATCH equipped child restraints in a compliance test could cause some
occupant classification systems to misclassify the child restraint (but
not in typical real-world usage).'' The petition stated that ``vehicle
manufacturers and their suppliers need substantial lead-time to
evaluate their systems and potentially redesign and incorporate into
production suppression systems that can meet the test procedures that
are to be developed.''
B. Future Appendix A Revisions
In addition, the Alliance petitioned NHTSA to provide at least two
years of lead time for any future revisions to Appendix A. The Alliance
expects that there will be a major update of the Appendix to add many
LATCH-equipped CRSs. The Alliance stated that ``at least 2-years of
lead time would help vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers to
design and develop suppression systems that will meet the LATCH
compliance test procedures that are to be developed.''
III. Response to Petitions
A. Effective Date Revision--Appendix A
We are denying the Alliance petition for one year of lead time
between the issuance of a LATCH CRS installation compliance test
procedure and the effective date of changes to Appendix A that would
add CRSs equipped with LATCH lower attachments. In the August 20, 2004,
final rule (69 FR 51598) the agency stated:
To ensure the robustness of automatic suppression systems, a
manufacturer must be able to certify that the system operates under
conditions representative of real world use. This includes operation
when used with CRS designs that have been sold for almost two years.
However, as the Alliance noted, the agency does not yet have a
compliance test procedure in place for testing seats installed by
means of the LATCH anchorages. Therefore, the effective date for the
LATCH equipped CRSs in Appendix A is extended until September 1,
2006. By that time, the agency will have developed a compliance test
procedure for securing a LATCH-equipped CRS to a vehicle using the
lower anchor attachments.
We are denying the petition because it presupposes that the agency
will not publish a test procedure in a time sufficient to allow ample
notice and lead time. When the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for
the LATCH procedure is issued, the agency will have an opportunity to
propose an effective date of the procedure or of the CRSs to which the
procedure would apply. To do this in advance of the NPRM publication is
premature.
B. Future Appendix A Revisions
We are also denying the Alliance petition to provide at least two
years of lead time for any future proposed revisions to Appendix A. In
the December 18, 2001, final rule we noted that, generally, a 1-year
lead time will be provided for amendments to Appendix A, but stressed
the importance of establishing a list that is representative of real
world usage (66 FR 65390). In response to the December 18, 2001, final
rule, Mitsubishi petitioned the agency for a 2-year lead time for
additions to Appendix A. In the preamble to the November 19, 2003,
final rule the agency provided an extensive discussion of the lead time
for additions to Appendix A (68 FR 65188).
Additionally, the one year lead time is consistent with the
agency's intent that occupant detection systems be robust and able
to detect any CRS, including those that are relatively new to the
market. However, in recognition that manufacturers need to know what
CRSs will be included as they design their new models, we have
decided to slightly change our position on lead time by making any
changes to Appendix A effective for the next model year introduced
one year after publication of the final rule modifying Appendix A.
(Consistent with our past practice, for this purpose, the model year
begins on September 1 of the prior calendar year.) This will result
in a one to two year lead time. For example, if Appendix A were
updated March 1, 2004, the revised appendix would become effective
September 1, 2005, a period of eighteen months after publication. We
believe this approach will allow manufacturers to tie their
certification to the automatic suppression requirements with the
introduction of a new model year.
Therefore, the agency has committed to providing at least one year
of lead time, plus any additional time up to the next September 1st, so
as to have the requirements to assure compliance using the new CRSs
become effective at the beginning of a model year. The current petition
for reconsideration for two years of lead time provides no new
information that would cause the agency to reconsider our position on
this issue.
IV. Conclusion
NHTSA received two petitions for reconsideration to the August 20,
2004, FMVSS No. 208 final rule from the Alliance. The Alliance
requested that any lead time between the issuance of a compliance test
procedure to install LATCH seats and the effective date of changes to
Appendix A be at least one year. They further requested a two year lead
time for any future revision to Appendix A. We are denying these
petitions.
The first petition is denied as premature, since the agency can and
will propose an appropriate lead time when the LATCH test procedure is
published. The second petition is denied because NHTSA addressed the
exact same issue in the preamble to the November 19, 2003, final rule,
and no new data have been presented that
[[Page 6779]]
would lead us to change our previous determination.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.
Issued on: February 3, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-2469 Filed 2-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
