Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Designated Seating Positions and Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 36094-36108 [05-12240]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 22, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36094-36108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-12240]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2005-21600]
RIN 2127-AI94


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Designated Seating 
Positions and Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the definition of ``designated 
seating position'' in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
(FMVSSs), and to establish a new procedure for determining the number 
of designated seating positions on bench and split bench seats. This 
document also proposes to apply that procedure to all types of 
vehicles, regardless of weight, and eliminate the existing exclusion 
for temporary or folding jump seats. The proposed rule would also 
revise test procedures for seat belt anchorage requirements so that 
they are suitable for side-facing, temporary or folding jump seats. 
NHTSA's goal in proposing these amendments is to improve the 
objectivity of the ``designated seating position'' definition and 
thereby facilitate efforts of the agency to ensure that the number of 
designated seating positions and occupant restraint systems in a 
vehicle is representative of real world occupancy.
    The proposed rule would also revise the general incorporation by 
reference provision for the FMVSSs by providing a centralized index of 
all matters therein incorporated by reference.

DATES: You should submit comments early enough to ensure that Docket 
Management receives them not later than August 22, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by the DOT DMS Docket 
Number above] by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 am 
and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Request for 
Comments heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments

[[Page 36095]]

received will be posted without change to https://dms.dot.gov, including 
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading 
under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Philip Oh of the NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety by telephone at (202) 
493-0195, and by fax at (202) 493-2290.
    For legal issues, you may contact Christopher Calamita of the NHTSA 
Office of Chief Counsel by telephone at (202) 366-2992 and by fax at 
(202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Safety Problem
III. Proposed Amendments
    A. ''Designated seating position''
    B. Measuring hip room
    C. Number of designated seating positions
    D. H-point
    E. Auxiliary seating and safety belt anchorages
    F. Preemption
IV. Benefits and Costs
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Effective Date
VII. Request for Comments
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    Motor vehicle manufacturers are required to designate which 
locations in their vehicles are seating positions. The designation of a 
location as a seating position is important for a variety of reasons. 
For example, passenger cars are required, under Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire and rim selection, to be clearly 
labeled with a maximum seating capacity. Moreover, FMVSS No. 208, 
Occupant crash protection, requires that each designated seating 
position, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3, in a light vehicle \1\ be 
provided with the appropriate occupant crash protection system (e.g., 
air bag, safety belts or both). If a vehicle has fewer designated 
seating positions than the number of seated individuals actually 
occupying it, some occupants would not be protected by safety belts or 
other crash protection systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA uses the term ``light vehicle'' to refer to passenger 
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross 
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of not greater than 10,000 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1978, the agency expressed concern with the common practice of 
designating front seats as having two seating positions, although they 
had capacity to accommodate three adults (43 FR 21892; May 22, 1978; 
Docket No. 78-13). As a result of this practice, front center 
passengers were not provided with safety belt assemblies. In response 
to this concern, the agency amended the definition of ``designated 
seating position'' to specify dimensional parameters. The agency stated 
that this was ``intended to ensure that all positions likely to be used 
for seating will be equipped with occupant restraint systems'' (44 FR 
23229; April 19, 1979). The portion of the definition of ``designated 
seating position'' relevant to the above discussion remains unchanged 
today.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The definition was amended again in 1995 to allow each 
wheelchair position to count as four designated seating positions 
for the purpose of determining vehicle classification in school 
buses only (57 FR 15504; March 24, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed below, however, field data regarding vehicle occupancy 
indicates that there is some ambiguity in the current definition and 
that it might not always require what we believe should be a full 
complement of designated seating positions (DSPs) to accommodate real 
world use.

II. Safety Problem

    Vehicle seat design and motor vehicle crash data indicate that in 
some instances real world occupancy rates exceed the number of 
designated seating positions in a vehicle, particularly on bench and 
split seats. The agency has placed a Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation 
(PRE) in the docket for this rulemaking that details our findings. 
Within the report, a survey of vehicle crash and fatality reporting 
systems data indicates that three passengers are occupying seats 
designated as having two seating positions (2-DSP seats). The agency 
reviewed and compared incidents involving three passengers occupying 
either a 2-DSP rear seat or a rear seat with three designated seating 
positions (3-DSP seat).
    Additionally, the PRE shows a significant decrease in the belt 
usage rate when comparing incidents in which two passengers occupied a 
2-DSP seat to incidents in which three passengers occupied a 2-DSP 
seat. The 1997 to 2001 National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) data 
indicated a drop in the belt usage rate for these cases from 53.25 
percent to 27.67 percent, respectively. These FARS data indicate that 
an occupant is at higher risk when he or she is one of the three 
occupants in a rear 2-DSP seat than when in a 3-DSP seat. These risks 
appear to be independent of vehicle size and the presence of padded or 
carpeted barriers that are intended to limit capacity.
    Vehicle size may not adequately limit the number of passengers 
occupying a vehicle seat from exceeding the designated capacity. The 
fatality rate for a passenger occupying a rear 2-DSP seat together with 
two other passengers was only slightly lower for occupants in a Geo 
Metro, a sub-compact, than the average rate for occupants of all 
vehicles surveyed: 6.02 versus 6.07 fatalities per one million 
registered vehicles.
    The rate at which one of the three passengers occupying a 2-DSP 
seat is killed in a motor vehicle crash also appears to be independent 
of the presence of physical features, other than those discussed in the 
next paragraph, intended to limit occupancy. The Chevrolet Camaro, 
which features a carpeted drive shaft tunnel that separates the two 
rear designated seating positions, had a similar fatality rate to that 
of the Ford Mustang. While the Camaro has a carpeted barrier, the Ford 
Mustang has a rear bench seat with no barrier between the two 
designated seating positions. The fatality rate for instances of three 
passengers occupying a 2-DSP seat was actually slightly higher for the 
Camaro than for the Mustang; 7.81 versus 7.51 fatalities per one 
million registered vehicles, respectively.
    Conversely, available data demonstrate that certain physical 
obstructions in the second row of seating can effectively limit the 
number of occupants to the number of designated seating positions. The 
Saturn SC Coupe 2 Door had no FARS fatalities involving three occupants 
in its 2-DSP second row of seating, and the Acura Integra 2 Door had 
only 2.44 such fatalities per one million registered vehicles. Both the 
Saturn SC Coupe and the Acura Integra had a hard plastic console that 
divides the rear seat into two seating positions, limiting seating 
capacity.
    In cases in which the same vehicle model was manufactured in both a 
two-door (2-DSP second row seating) and a four-door (3-DSP second row 
seating) version, the PRE shows that the incident rate for occupants of 
the rear seat of the two door version, when occupied by three 
passengers, was two-thirds of that of the four-door version, or higher. 
While the incident rates may not directly correlate to the frequency of 
three occupants using a 2-DSP seat, the

[[Page 36096]]

rates demonstrate that seats designated as having only two seating 
positions are being used by three occupants. As a result, at least one 
occupant would not have access to a safety belt assembly. A survey of 
State Data System (SDS) accident reports compared the two-door (with 2-
DSP second row seating) and the four-door (with 3-DSP second row 
seating) models of the Ford Explorer and the Chevrolet S10 Blazer. The 
incident rate for second row occupants when three passengers occupied 
the second row of the two-door Ford was approximately 64 percent of 
that of the four-door model. For the Chevrolet models, incidents 
involving three passengers occupying the second row seat for the two-
door model occurred at a rate of 78 percent of that of the four-door 
model.

III. Proposed Amendments

    The agency is proposing to amend the definition of ``designated 
seating position'' to better ensure that seating position designations 
more accurately reflect real world occupancy. The proposed amendment 
would define ``designated seating position'' based on available hip 
room as measured according to procedures established by the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE), with qualifications to provide for 
measurement of the largest hip room dimension and the incorporation of 
H-point in the measurement procedure. We are also proposing a formula 
to determine the appropriate number of designated seating positions on 
bench and split bench seats according to the hip room measurement. The 
formula proposed in this document would further clarify the appropriate 
number of designated seating positions for a vehicle seat.
    We note that while the agency was already working internally to 
address the safety concerns discussed above, we received a petition for 
rulemaking from Strategic Safety requesting that the agency establish a 
more objective method for determining the number of designated seating 
positions (September 10, 2002; Docket No. NHTSA-2002-11398-7). Since 
the agency had already initiated work on the issue raised by Strategic 
Safety, we view its petition as moot.

A. ``Designated seating position''

    If made final, today's proposal would establish a definition of 
``designated seating position'' that is more reflective of the 
occupancy rates experienced in the real world. By expressly relying on 
a hip room measurement for a 5th percentile adult female, instead of 
the somewhat less precise and less certain criteria of being large 
enough to accommodate such a person, the definition would provide for 
more objective determinations of what is a ``designated seating 
position.''
    We are also making the definition more objective by proposing to 
remove language that relies on the likelihood that a location will be 
used as a seat while a vehicle is in motion. Currently, a designated 
seat position is defined, in part, as:

    [Any] plan view location capable of accommodating a person at 
least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat 
configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the 
position is likely to be used as a seating position while the 
vehicle is in motion [.]

    As evidenced by the current vehicle fleet experience, we believe 
that the ``likely to be used'' language does not provide adequate 
objectivity to determine when a vehicle seat designation is required. 
This difficulty leads to a safety concern when the number of seating 
positions designated for a seat differs from the real world occupancy 
of that seat. Therefore, we are proposing to replace the ``likely to be 
used'' language and incorporate the term ``seat,'' into the definition.
    In relying on the term ``seat,'' we recognize that it is not 
practicable to design a vehicle to prevent all potential occupant 
misuse of interior positions. However, we believe there is abundant 
notice to drivers and occupants of light vehicles that the use of 
safety belts is essential, and therefore, that sitting in a location in 
a vehicle that is not equipped with a safety belt is inappropriate and 
dangerous. Vehicle literature and advertising, as well as numerous 
public outreach programs, inform and remind the public of the need to 
wear safety belts while riding in a vehicle. Vehicle owner's manuals 
are replete with exhortations on the importance of always wearing a 
safety belt. Further, the warning label required to be on the visor in 
every light vehicle expressly tells vehicle occupants to wear safety 
belts always. The public's awareness of these messages is evidenced by 
the fact that the national safety belt use rate increased from 71 
percent in 2001 to 80 percent in 2004, an all time high.
    Consistent with the current definition, the proposed definition 
would be based on accommodating a 5th percentile adult female.\3\ 
However, unlike the current definition, the proposed definition would 
expressly and exclusively rely on a hip room measurement. A designated 
seating position would be any seating location that has at least 330 mm 
(13 inches) of hip room,\4\ when measured according to the procedure 
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In examining the fatalities that occurred when a seat was 
occupied by more occupants than there were occupant protection 
systems, we found no definite skew toward child fatalities from the 
age distribution in the FARS data that would indicate a need to 
consider basing the definition on younger, smaller occupants.
    \4\ The 5th percentile female hip width specified in S7.1.4 of 
FMVSS No. 208 is of 325 mm (12.8 inches). We rounded the measurement 
to 330 mm (13 inches) for purposes of the formula proposed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Measuring Hip Room

    NHTSA is proposing to establish a revised procedure for measuring 
hip room and to place it in a new section, Sec.  571.10, Designation of 
seating positions. Section 571.10 would set out, with several 
modifications, the procedure in SAE Recommended Practice J1100 rev. 
February 2001, ``Motor Vehicle Dimensions,'' for measuring hip room. 
Under SAE J1100 rev. February 2001, hip room of a seat is the minimum 
dimension measured laterally between the interior trim \5\ of a vehicle 
on the ``X'' plane through the seating reference point (SgRP) within 25 
mm (1 inch) below, and 76 mm (3 inches) above the SgRP and 76 mm (3 
inches) fore and aft of the SgRP. However, under the proposal, we would 
use the H-point as a reference as opposed to the SgRP. SgRP is a design 
point designated by a manufacturer, while the H-point is determined by 
measurements within the vehicle. Reliance on the H-point would permit 
making measurements across an array of seat positions, independent of a 
manufacturer's designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Interior trim is a molded plastic, fabric or other non-
supportive surface within the occupant compartment (e.g., a molded 
arm rest, a carpeted door panel, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the SAE procedure uses the minimum dimension measured 
laterally between interior trim of a vehicle on the ``X'' plane through 
the seating reference point, the agency is proposing to use the maximum 
dimension. Further, in the case of adjustable seats, the proposal would 
use the position that produces the maximum value. These two aspects of 
the proposal would result in the largest realistic hip room being 
measured, and thus would more accurately account for all potential 
seating. Further, the width of a seat would include any void between 
the seat and the adjacent interior trim or adjacent seat unless the 
void meets certain dimensional criteria.
    Hip room would be considered to be continuous under Sec.  571.10, 
unless there is a separation greater than 150 mm (5.9

[[Page 36097]]

inches) between adjacent seat cushions, or between a seat cushion and 
the vehicle interior, and the separation contains either:
    (1) A fixed, unpadded impediment that is at least 5 mm (0.2 inches) 
higher than the highest point on the upper surface of the seat cushion 
when viewed in profile, which extends for greater than two-thirds of 
the horizontal depth of the seat cushions;\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A surface covered in carpet or other padding would not meet 
this condition. This is in response to the FARS incident data that 
showed the carpeted drive shaft tunnel failed to act as an 
impediment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) A void that can accommodate a rectangular box 150 mm (5.9 
inches) wide, 150 mm (5.9 inches) high, and two-thirds of the 
horizontal depth of the seat cushion in length, with the box sitting 2 
mm (0.08 inches) below each point on the top profile of the seat 
cushion \7\; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Figure 1 of the proposed regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) A parking brake or gear shift handle, that when placed in the 
lowest possible position, is at least 25 mm (1.0 inches) higher than 
the highest point of the seat cushion.
    These criteria are based on the designs observed in the FARS study 
and noted in the PRE, which demonstrated that impediments such as 
carpeted barriers are ineffective at preventing three people from 
sitting on a seat with only two designated seating positions. The 
agency requests comments on whether these specifications would result 
in seat designations more reflective of real world occupancy rates.

C. Number of Designated Seating Positions

    Section 571.10 would also provide equations for use in determining 
the number of ``designated seating positions'' on a seat. The proposed 
equations for calculating the number of designated seating positions 
would be dependent upon the overall continuous hip room. For seats with 
less than 1400 mm (55 inches) of hip room, the measured hip room would 
be divided by 400\8\ and rounded to the nearest whole number to produce 
the number of designated seating positions. For example, seats with 
approximately 1007 mm (39.5 inches) of hip room would be designated as 
having three seating positions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Other international standards use a similar number to 
determine the number of seating positions; i.e., Australian Design 
Rule 5, Section 10; Automobile Type Approval Handbook for Japanese 
Certification, Section 11-1, Article 22.
    \9\ 1007 mm of measured hip room divided by 400 equals 2.5, 
which would then be rounded up to three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the vehicles surveyed in the PRE, at a seat width of 1007 
mm (39.5 inches) and more, three occupants were more likely to occupy a 
2-DSP seat, unless a non-padded barrier was present. Requiring seats at 
least this width or wider to be designated as having three seating 
positions would present manufacturers several options for compliance. 
Manufacturers could comply by redesigning their seats to include the 
appropriate impediment, provide the necessary void between adjacent 
seat cushions, or by installing an additional seat belt assembly. We 
anticipate that manufacturers would be more likely to redesign such 
seats, if needed, to incorporate an impediment or void as necessary. 
The potential vehicle packaging and marketing issues associated with 
the addition of a seat belt assembly, along with compliance 
implications (e.g., dynamic crash testing, cargo capacity, etc.) would 
make this option unlikely. Additionally, issues of comfort might arise 
as a result of three occupants being seated at the location. Space 
limitations may make it difficult for occupants to use their respective 
safety belts when three occupants are seated at such a location.
    For seats with 1400 mm (55 inches) or more of hip room, the 
measured hip room would be divided by 450 and rounded to the nearest 
whole number. The purpose of picking 450 as the divisor is to prevent 
larger 3-DSP seats from having to be designated as 4-DSP seats. The 
data do not demonstrate a problem with 3-DSP seats being occupied by 
four passengers, and does not demonstrate the potential for any benefit 
from such a requirement. In addition, for larger vehicles with longer 
bench seats (e.g., shuttle buses and limousines), the 450 divisor 
results in a designated seating position width that aligns with the 
width typically used by seating manufacturers. The rationale for using 
two different equations is further discussed in the Benefits and Costs 
section.
    Under the current definition, any bench or split bench seat in a 
passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a gross 
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 lb), 
having greater than 1270 mm (50 inches) of hip room shall not have less 
than three designated seating positions. Under the proposed definition, 
the calculation for determining the number of designated seating 
positions on a bench or split seat would apply to all vehicles equipped 
with such seats regardless of the vehicle weight.

D. H-Point

    This document also proposes to update the definition of ``H-
Point,'' which is referred to in the proposed definition of 
``designated seating position.'' The current definition of ``H-Point'' 
references the ``H-Point'' definition in SAE Recommended Practice J826, 
``Devices for use in Defining and Measuring Vehicle Seating 
Accommodation'' (1962). Since the establishment of the ``H-point'' 
definition in 49 CFR Sec.  571.3, SAE J826 has been updated (revised 
July 1995) and now refers to SAE J1100 for defining ``H-Point.'' This 
rulemaking proposes to reference SAE J1100 directly in defining ``H-
point.'' While SAE J826 has been updated, there has been no significant 
change to the definition of ``H-Point.'' Further, the proposed ``H-
point'' definition would specify that the H-point is to be determined 
using the 3-D test fixture.

E. Auxiliary Seating and Safety Belt Anchorages

    We are proposing to include auxiliary seats and jump seats in the 
definition of ``designated seating position.'' Currently, the 
definition does not include these seats. Since these seats are not 
designated seating positions, they are not subject to the occupant 
crash protection requirements applicable to designated seating 
positions (e.g., safety belt requirements).
    Presently, the agency urges that all occupants in light vehicles be 
appropriately restrained when a motor vehicle is in operation. When the 
agency originally adopted the designated seating position definition, 
safety belt use rates were well below 20 percent and the focus of the 
agency was not on temporary seats. Now that safety belt use rates are 
much higher, the agency is focused on all occupants being properly 
restrained. This includes those occupants on auxiliary seats.
    If the proposed definition is adopted, auxiliary seats and folding 
jump seats would be required to meet all requirements in FMVSSs 
applicable to designated seating positions, including the requirements 
of FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.
    Traditionally, manufacturers have classified some side-facing seats 
in light vehicles as auxiliary or jump seats. The current test 
procedures for the anchorage strength requirements as specified in S5.2 
of FMVSS No. 210 were designed for forward and rear facing seats only. 
Under S5.2, a force must be applied in the direction in which the seat 
faces in a plane parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the 
vehicle. For side-facing seats, including auxiliary or jump seats, the 
direction that the seat faces is perpendicular to the longitudinal 
centerline of the

[[Page 36098]]

vehicle. Consequently, a force cannot be applied simultaneously in the 
direction that a side-facing seat faces and in a plane parallel to the 
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. To permit strength testing of 
seat belt anchorages at side-facing designated seating positions, we 
are proposing to amend S5 of FMVSS No. 210 to specify that for side-
facing seats, the specified force would be applied in the direction 
that the seat faces in a vertical plane perpendicular to the 
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.

F. Preemption

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), when a safety standard is in effect under 
the FMVSSs, a State is preempted from adopting or retaining a standard 
that imposes a different standard of performance, except for vehicles 
obtained for its own use. This express preemption clause has been 
interpreted as limited to State statutes and regulations based on the 
presence in the Safety Act of a provision stating that compliance with 
a FMVSS does not exempt ``any person from any liability under common 
law'' (49 U.S.C. 30103(c); ``saving clause'').\10\ However, neither the 
express preemption clause (by negative implication) nor the saving 
clause bars the preemption of state common law in instances in which 
state law (tort law) conflicts with uniform Federal safety regulations 
of national applicability.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 529 U.S. 861 
(2000).
    \11\ ``[T]he saving clause (like the express pre-emption 
provision) does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption 
principles.'' Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 529 U.S. 861, 
869, emphasis original. Indeed, though we are setting forth the 
agency's intention in this particular matter, ``the failure of the 
Federal Register to address pre-emption explicitly is thus not 
determinative. Id. at 884.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definition of ``designated seating position'' would be 
established in the section for common definitions for the FMVSSs to 
accomplish NHTSA's essential safety objectives. As described below, 
differing definitions would not provide the important safety benefits 
that NHTSA envisions and could instead be detrimental to safety. Hence, 
any differing requirements would ``prevent or frustrate the 
accomplishment of a federal objective.'' Crosby v. National Foreign 
Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000). Therefore, if the proposed 
definition of ``designated seating position'' would be made final, 
section 30103(b) would preempt State statutes and regulations requiring 
the designation of more or different seating positions than those 
required by that definition.
    In addition, if made final, this definition of ``designated seating 
position'' would preempt any conflicting determinations in state tort 
law as to whether a location is or ought to be a designated seating 
position. A tort law determination premised on the designation of more 
designated seating positions than those required by the proposed 
definition could have a negative safety impact. Such a determination 
could result in a location being equipped with a greater number of 
safety belts than required under the Federal standards. The 
installation of an excessive number of safety belts might decrease, not 
increase, safety. Seat belt comfort and convenience are important 
factors affecting the level of safety belt use. Occupants might be less 
likely to use safety belts because limited space would make such use 
difficult or uncomfortable (i.e., if too many safety belts were 
installed at a location, some occupants may end up sitting on buckles 
or be prevented from reaching his or her respective belt by the 
presence of another occupant). The potential for such a scenario would 
frustrate the efforts of this agency to base the number of designated 
seating positions, and thus the number of safety belts, on reasonably 
anticipated occupancy levels. This would hamper our efforts to promote 
increased safety belt use rates.

IV. Benefits and Costs

    The agency has tentatively determined that there are three ways for 
manufacturers to address the proposed amendment to DSP: Add a lap/
shoulder belt; create a space between the seats to restrict the number 
of seating positions; and design an impediment to reduce the likelihood 
of people sitting in between the outboard seats. If manufacturers were 
to add additional lap/shoulder belts, 5 lives would be saved and 41 AIS 
\12\ 2-5 injuries would be prevented annually once the proposal is 
fully implemented. We believe the other two options would provide 
somewhat less benefit than supplying a lap/shoulder belt, although we 
are unable to quantify the benefits of an impediment and void because 
the benefits are influenced by occupant behavior. The cost of the 
proposed change in the DSP definition would depend on which options 
manufacturers implemented, ranging from approximately $12 million to 
$41.7 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The AIS or Abbreviated Injury Scale is used to rank 
injuries by level of severity. An AIS 1 injury is a minor one, while 
an AIS 6 injury is one that is currently untreatable and fatal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed inclusion of side-facing seats, jump seats, and 
auxiliary seats in the definition of designated seating position is not 
reflected in the benefit and cost analysis. The agency is unaware of 
any current vehicles with side-facing, jump seats, or auxiliary seats 
that would not already comply with this proposal, if it were made 
final.

Benefits

    To estimate the number of lives saved and injuries that would be 
prevented if manufacturers chose to add safety belts, the agency relied 
on belt use rates, the estimated effectiveness of rear lap/shoulder 
belts, and the potential injuries and fatalities to unbelted rear seat 
occupants. Based on these estimates, the agency has tentatively 
determined that 5 lives would be saved, and 41 AIS 2-5 injuries would 
be prevented, annually.
    To estimate seat belt usage, the agency relied on an adjusted 
average of the rear seat left, middle, and right positions derived from 
seat belt use rates generated by the General Estimates System (GES) and 
National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS).\13\ Because GES data 
rely on reporting from vehicle occupants, it may overstate seat belt 
use. To correct for this, the agency divided the GES estimates by the 
seat belt use rate observed in the June 2002 NOPUS study to obtain a 
conservative usage rate.\14\ This adjusted factor was then applied to 
an average of seat belt use rates for the rear left, rear middle, and 
rear right seat positions to generate a seat belt use rate of 64.6 
percent for passenger cars and 64.1 percent for light trucks and vans 
(LTVs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Data for GES come from a nationally representative sample 
of police reported motor vehicle crashes of all types, from minor to 
fatal and relies in part on statements made by vehicle occupants. 
NOPUS data is generated through direct observation of occupant 
behavior.
    \14\ Because NOPUS is based on direct observation of occupant 
behavior as opposed to occupant reporting, the seat belt use rate is 
less likely to be overstated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on previous studies, the agency has estimated the 
effectiveness of lap/shoulder belts in the rear seat of passenger cars 
and LTVs as follows:

      Estimated Percent Effectiveness of Rear Seat Safety Belts \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Rear seat
                                                                  lap/
                        Passenger cars                          shoulder
                                                                  belt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIS 2-5......................................................     \2\ 49
Fatalities...................................................         44
LTVs.........................................................  .........
AIS 2-5......................................................     \2\ 78

[[Page 36099]]

 
Fatalities...................................................         73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Final Regulatory Impact Analysis Extension of the Automatic
  Restraint Requirements of FMVSS No. 208 to Trucks, Buses, and
  Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of
  8,500 Pounds or Less and an Unloaded Vehicle Weight of 5,500 Pounds or
  Less,'' NHTSA, Plans and Policy, Office of Regulatory Analysis,
  November 1990.
\2\ Assumed based on 5 percent increase in effectiveness of front seat
  AIS 2-5 injuries over fatalities.

    The agency then estimated the potential injuries and fatalities 
that would occur if in instances in which three passengers occupied a 
second row seat with two designated seating positions and none of these 
passengers were restrained, to be 77 AIS 2-5 injuries and 21 
fatalities. The agency also estimated the potential injuries and 
fatalities for LTV occupants in the same circumstances to be 111 AIS 2-
5 injuries and 13 fatalities. All rear seat occupants were included in 
the analysis after initially concluding that the improper seating 
configuration would potentially affect all rear seat belt usage. The 
belt usage data showed a significant decrease in rate when comparing 
incidents in which two passengers occupied a 2-DSP seat to incidents in 
which three passengers occupied a 2-DSP seat; 53.25 percent belted rate 
versus 27.67 percent belted rate, respectively.
    To compute the potential injuries prevented and lives saved, the 
agency multiplied the number of potential injuries by the effectiveness 
of the lap/shoulder belt and by the belt usage rate. This resulted in 
an estimation of 11 AIS 2-5 injuries and 2 fatalities prevented for 
passenger car occupants and 30 AIS 2-5 injuries and 3 fatalities 
prevented for LTV occupants. For a detailed discussion of the benefits 
calculation, see the preliminary regulatory evaluation placed in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
    The benefits of incorporating a void or an impediment depend upon 
the occupant's response to the void or impediment. In some scenarios, 
the benefits would be the same as providing a lap/shoulder belt; i.e., 
at the time of a vehicle purchase, if a consumer recognizes that there 
is not enough room for an additional passenger, even for occasional 
trips, the consumer may choose another model vehicle that has three 
designated seating positions. In this instance, three safety belts 
would be available, and the benefits would be the same as supplying a 
third safety belt.
    If a seating position were unavailable (because of a void) or 
uncomfortable (because of an impediment), an occupant would be less 
likely to occupy that space. This would force the extra passenger 
either to forego the trip or to go in another vehicle. In either 
instance, this reduces the risk of three occupants occupying a 2-DSP 
seat. If a seating position is unavailable (because of a void) or 
uncomfortable (because of an impediment), but three occupants sit in 
the back seat regardless, no benefits will accrue.
    Although we cannot estimate the benefits of a void or impediment, 
it appears that the overall benefits of providing a void or impediment 
would be somewhat less than supplying a lap/shoulder belt.

Costs

    The cost of the proposed amendments would depend on whether a 
vehicle manufacturer maintained the two seating position designation 
for a vehicle's rear seat or if the manufacturer increased the 
designated number of seating positions for the rear seat to three. If a 
manufacturer were to maintain a seat's 2-DSP designation under the 
proposed definition, it could design an appropriate impediment between 
seat cushions or design an appropriate void. While there has been no 
detailed analysis of the cost of installing an impediment, the agency 
has estimated a cost based on the dealership retail prices. The total 
cost of installing a rear seat console to impede usage in passenger 
cars is approximately $8.03 million (688,207 x $11.67) and in LTVs is 
approximately $3.94 million (337,761 x $11.67). The actual cost may be 
less than the estimated amount since the agency did not assume a 
decrease in seat cost for the reduction of the seat foam material 
needed.
    A manufacturer may also choose to employ a void. For passenger 
cars, incorporation of a void in the rear seats may produce no added 
cost; material could be taken out, but the seat would have to be 
stitched (more labor) to have the void appear finished. Manufacturers 
could also replace a bench seat with two bucket seats. We estimate the 
additional cost for substitution at $18.33 per replaced bench seat. If 
all affected vehicles had bench seats replaced with bucket seats, the 
total cost would be approximately $18.88 million.
    A manufacturer could also choose to increase the number of 
designated seating positions at a seat and provide an additional seat 
belt as required under FMVSS No. 208. FMVSS No. 208 requires passenger 
cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles or buses with a GVWR less 
than 4,356 kilograms (10,000 pounds) to have seat belt assemblies for 
each designated seating position. The agency recently published a final 
rule requiring lap/shoulder belt assemblies in the rear center 
designated seating positions (69 FR 70904; December 8, 2004; Docket No. 
NHTSA-04-18726; Notice 1). Therefore, it used the cost of the lap/
shoulder belt assembly in that rulemaking to estimate the cost of this 
compliance option.
    For this analysis, the agency relied on an estimated average cost 
of installing a lap/shoulder belt in the rear center seat of 
$29.85.\15\ For LTVs, the agency expects the rear center seat belt 
costs to be similar to those of passenger cars. Again, using the model 
year 2003 sales figure, we estimate that the cost for installing lap/
shoulder belts in the rear center seats of vehicles with an increased 
number of designated seating positions would be approximately $30.74 
million (1.03 million vehicles x $29.85).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In year 2003 dollars ($2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For some vehicles, the addition of a seat belt assembly to the rear 
center seat would also require reinforcement of the seat to accommodate 
an anchorage for the shoulder portion of a lap/shoulder seat belt 
assembly. The rear seat of passenger cars and pick up trucks would not 
need to be reinforced because the anchors for the shoulder belt could 
be attached to the back package shelf or down to the floor frame of the 
vehicle without impinging on the floor space or trunk space. However, 
this would not be the case for passenger vans and sport utility 
vehicles (SUVs). In those instances, the floor space where an anchorage 
may be required would be located in occupant or cargo space. Therefore, 
the anchorage would need to be attached to the seat itself and the seat 
would need to be reinforced. This reinforcement would cost $32.79 
($2003) per seating position. The agency estimates that 337,761\16\ 
vehicles would need to reinforce the rear seat to accommodate an 
additional seat belt assembly. The total cost of strengthening the rear 
seats of passenger vans and SUVs to accommodate the shoulder portion of 
the lap/shoulder belt would be $11.08 million ($32.79 x 337,761 
vehicles). This would bring the total cost for adding lap/shoulder 
belts to the rear seats of motor vehicles increasing the second row 
seating

[[Page 36100]]

position from 2-DSP to 3-DSP to $41.7 million ($2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Based on estimated model year 2003 sales of passenger vans 
and SUVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously stated, the proposed equation for calculating the 
number of designated seating positions varies depending on overall hip 
room; for seats with less than 1400 mm of hip room, the hip room is 
divided by 400, while a hip room measurement of anything equal to 
greater than 1400 mm would be divided by 450. If we used a divisor of 
400 for all seats, regardless of width, a seat with 1400 mm of hip room 
would increase from 3-DSP under the existing definition in section 
571.3 to a 4-DSP seat. Benefits for such a redesignation would be 
minimal because the rate at which four persons occupy a seat location 
currently designated as a 3-DSP seat is low. Further, the number of 
LTVs that would need to be modified would increase by approximately 3.4 
times, resulting in cost range of $40.53 million to $217.6 million.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    Under 1 CFR part 51, Incorporation by Reference, the agency must 
declare that the Director of the Federal Register has approved 
incorporation by reference of a publication into a regulation. If made 
final, this proposal would amend the general incorporation by reference 
provision at Sec.  571.5, Matters incorporated by reference, to include 
a centralized index of all of the publications incorporated into part 
571.

VI. Effective Date

    If adopted, the amendments proposed in this rulemaking action would 
become effective on the third September 1st after the date of 
publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. For example, if a 
final rule were adopted on December 1, 2005, the rule would be 
effective beginning September 1, 2008. As stated above, we anticipate 
that manufacturers would incorporate a void or barrier in 2-DSP vehicle 
seats that, as currently configured, would become classified as having 
three designated seating positions. This would require less redesign 
than equipping these seats with an additional seat belt assembly. Based 
on this assumption, we have tentatively concluded that a minimum of two 
years would be adequate time for manufacturers to make any necessary 
changes. We request comment on this tentative conclusion.

VII. Request for Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of 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. Please 
submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to 
Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. Comments 
may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the 
Docket Management System website at https://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help 
& Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain instructions for filing the 
document electronically. If you are submitting comments electronically 
as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned 
using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the 
agency to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.\17\ 
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order 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.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's 
guidelines may be accessed at https://dmses.dot.gov/submit/
DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of 
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or 
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management 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, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management 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 Docket Management 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, take the following 
steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (https://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``Simple Search.''
    (3) On the next page (https://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``Search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged 
documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded 
comments are not word searchable.
    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

[[Page 36101]]

periodically check the Docket for new material.

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budget impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    This document proposes to amend the definition of designated 
seating position in 49 CFR 571.3. The proposed amendment would provide 
an objective procedure for determining the number of designated seating 
positions present in a vehicle, and provide manufacturers with a more 
objective method for delineating designated seating positions. Under 
the proposed definition, manufacturers could maintain a vehicle's 
current number of designated seating positions by incorporating design 
changes at a cost of $11.97 million. By way of example, the Subaru Baja 
is currently equipped with a barrier that would maintain a 2-DSP 
designation for the second row seat under the proposed amendment. 
Further, several previous vehicle models, e.g., the Saturn SC Coupe and 
Acura Integra 2-door, were similarly equipped.
    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be 
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The agency has 
prepared a regulatory evaluation as required by the DOT policies and 
procedures. A copy of that evaluation has been placed in the docket for 
this rulemaking.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this proposed action on small 
entities. I hereby certify that this notice of proposed rulemaking 
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The following is the agency's statement providing the factual basis 
for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). If adopted, the proposal would 
directly affect motor vehicle manufacturers and motor vehicle seat 
manufacturers. According to the size standards of the Small Business 
Association (at 13 CFR Part 121.601), the size standard for 
manufacturers of ``Automobile Manufacturing'' (NAICS Code 336111) is 
1,000 employees or fewer. Manufacturers of vehicle seats are considered 
manufacturers of ``Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim 
Manufacturing'' (NAICS Code 336360). The size standard for NAICS Code 
336360 is 500 employees or fewer.
    The majority of motor vehicle manufacturers would not qualify as a 
small business. These manufacturers, along with manufacturers that do 
qualify as a small business, would be able to maintain the current 
vehicle designated seating position designation through design changes 
outlined in the proposed definition. The definition would not require 
vehicles to have a certain number of designated seating positions, but 
would provide an objective metric to define the number of designated 
seating positions for a given seat.
    Most of the seat manufacturers have 500 or fewer employees. But 
again, if design changes are required to maintain a seats 2-DSP 
designation, this could be done by designing a void to the 
specifications in the proposed definition at a minimal cost per seat. 
Accordingly, there would be no significant impact on small businesses, 
small organizations, or small governmental units by these amendments. 
For these reasons, the agency has not prepared a preliminary regulatory 
flexibility analysis.

C. Executive Order No. 13132

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132, Federalism 
and has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient Federal 
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or 
the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. The proposal 
would not have any substantial impact on the States, or on the current 
Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials. The proposed rule 
has no substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-
State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.
    The proposed rule is not intended to preempt state tort civil 
actions, except that the determination in those actions of what is a 
``designated seating position'' would be governed by the definition and 
procedure contained in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We 
are unaware of any State standards or determinations setting forth a 
conflicting definition of ``designated seating position.'' Therefore, 
the agency believes that federalism implications from this preemption 
would be minor.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation 
of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of 
the human environment.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed amendment does not contain any collection of 
information requirements requiring review under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).

F. 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.''
    The proposed amendment is based on the technical standard SAE J1100 
``Motor Vehicle Dimensions,'' revised February 2001 and incorporate SAE 
J826 ``Devices for use in Defining and Measuring Vehicle Seating 
Accommodations,'' revised July 1995. While the procedure for measuring 
hip room would be based on SAE J1100, the proposed procedure include 
several qualifiers. First, the proposed procedure would use the H-point 
rather than the SgRP. Second, the proposed procedure would use the 
maximum dimension

[[Page 36102]]

measured laterally between the trimmed surface on the ``X'' plane 
through the H-Point rather than the minimum. In addition, in the case 
of adjustable seats, the proposed procedure would use the position that 
would produce the maximum value. These qualifiers would allow for the 
largest realistic hip room to be measured, which would account for all 
potential seating. Finally, this proposal clearly states what is to be 
considered continuous seating area for the purposes of measuring hip 
room. This qualifier would objectively define what constitutes a 
discontinuity, i.e., an impediment or void between seat cushions that 
would be considered sufficient to prevent occupant use.

G. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposal would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 21403, 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. As explained above, we are further proposing that the 
definition of ``designated seating position'' established in the 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards preempt State law, including 
State tort law, from establishing a definition that is not identical. 
We have tentatively determined that such preemption is required to 
eliminate the potential for varying definitions, which could result in 
a loss in safety. 49 U.S.C. 21461 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.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to 
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects 
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to 
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually 
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This rulemaking would 
not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million 
annually.

I. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it 
is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866 and does not 
involve decisions based on environmental, health, or safety risks that 
disproportionately affect children. The proposed rule, if made final, 
would amend the definition of ``designated seating position.''

J. Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as defined 
under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse effect 
on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that is 
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. If made final, this 
rulemaking would not be a significant energy action. Therefore, this 
proposal was not analyzed under E.O. 13211.

K. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this proposal.

L. 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.

M. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
https://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Tires.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
Part 571 as follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 571 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. 49 CFR 571.3(b) would be amended by revising the definition of 
``designated seating position'' and ``H-point'' to read as follows;


Sec.  571.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Designated seating position means a seat location that has at least 
330 mm (13 inches) of hip room measured according to Sec.  571.10(b) of 
this part. The number of designated seating positions at a seat 
location is determined according to the procedure set forth in Sec.  
571.10(a) of this part. For the sole purpose of determining the 
classification of any vehicle sold or introduced into interstate 
commerce for purposes that include carrying students to and from school 
or related events, any location in such vehic