Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 61908-61911 [05-21465]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
61908
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 207 / Thursday, October 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
(v) For computer programs (including
videogames), the identifying description
should include to the extent known at
the time of filing, the nature, purpose
and function of the computer program,
including the programming language in
which it is written, any particular
organization or structure in which the
program has been created; the form in
which it is expected to be published,
e.g. as an online–only product; whether
there have been previous versions (and
identification of such previous
versions); the identities of persons
involved in the creation of the computer
program; and, if the work is a
videogame, also describe the subject
matter of the videogame and the overall
object, goal or purpose of the game, its
characters, if any, and the general
setting and surrounding found in the
game.
(vi) For advertising or marketing
photographs, the description should
include the subject matter depicted in
the photograph or photographs,
including information such as the
particular product, event, public figure,
or other item or occurrence which the
photograph is intended to advertise or
market. To the extent possible and
applicable, the description for
photographs should give additional
details which will assist in identifying
the particular photographs, such as the
party for whom such advertising
photographs are taken; the approximate
time periods during which the
photographs are taken; the approximate
number of photos which may be
included in the grouping; any events
associated with the photographs; and
the location and physical setting or
surrounding depicted in the
photographs. The description may also
explain the general presentation, e.g.,
the lighting, background scenery,
positioning of elements of the subject
matter as it is seen in the photographs,
and should provide any locations and
events, if applicable, associated with the
photographs.
(7) Review of preregistration
information. The Copyright Office will
conduct a limited review of applications
for preregistration, in order to ascertain
whether the application describes a
work that is in a class of works that the
Register of Copyrights has determined
has had a history of infringement prior
to authorized commercial release.
However, a work will not be
preregistered unless an applicant has
provided all of the information
requested on the application and has
certified that all of the information
provided on the application is correct to
the best of the applicant’s knowledge.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:58 Oct 26, 2005
Jkt 208001
(8) Certification. The person
submitting an application for
preregistration must certify on the
application that he or she is the author,
copyright claimant, or owner of
exclusive rights, or the authorized agent
of the author, copyright claimant, or
owner of exclusive rights, of the work
submitted for this preregistration; that
the information given in this application
is correct to the best of his or her
knowledge; that the work is being
prepared for commercial distribution;
and that he or she has a reasonable
expectation that the work will be
commercially distributed to the public.
(9) Effective date of preregistration.
The effective date of a preregistration is
the day on which an application and fee
for preregistration of a work, which the
Copyright Office later notifies the
claimant has been preregistered or
which a court of competent jurisdiction
has concluded was acceptable for
preregistration, have been received in
the Copyright Office.
(10) Notification of preregistration.
Upon completion of the preregistration,
the Copyright Office will provide the
claimant official notification by email of
the preregistration.
(11) Certification of preregistation. A
certified copy of the official notification
may be obtained in physical form from
the Certification and Documents Section
of the Information and Reference
Division at the address stated in
§ 201.1(a)(3) of this chapter.
(12) Public record of preregistration.
The preregistration record will also be
available to the public on the Copyright
Office website, https://
www.copyright.gov.
(13) Effect of preregistration.
Preregistration of a work offers certain
advantages to a copyright owner
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 408(f), 411 and
412. However, preregistration of a work
does not constitute prima facie evidence
of the validity of the copyright or of the
facts stated in the application for
preregistration or in the preregistration
record. The fact that a work has been
preregistered does not create any
presumption that the Copyright Office
will register the work upon submission
of an application for registration.
(14) Petition for recognition of a new
class of works. At any time an interested
party may petition the Register of
Copyrights for a determination as to
whether a particular class of works has
had a history of copyright infringement
prior to authorized release that would
justify inclusion of that class of works
among the classes of works eligible for
preregistration.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Dated: October 19, 2005
Marybeth Peters,
Register of Copyrights.
Approved by:
James H. Billington,
The Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 05–21381 Filed 10–26–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–S
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2005–21048]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document denies a
petition for rulemaking submitted by
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (Honda), to
amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ‘‘Child
restraint systems.’’ Honda requested that
FMVSS No. 213 be amended to limit the
weight of all child restraint systems
used with the 3-year-old dummy. Honda
stated that such an amendment would
assure the proper operation of weightbased occupant detection systems used
to meet the air bag suppression
requirements of FMVSS No. 208,
‘‘Occupant crash protection.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For Non-Legal Issues: Mr. Tewabe
Asebe, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590,
Telephone: (202) 366–2365.
For Legal Issues: Mr. Chris Calamita,
Office of Chief Counsel, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366–2992,
Facsimile: (202) 366–3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 12, 2000, NHTSA issued a
final rule for advanced air bags,
amending FMVSS No. 208 to, among
other things, minimize injuries to small
adults and young children due to air bag
deployment (65 FR 30680). To address
the risk air bags pose to young children
in child restraint systems, the agency
amended FMVSS No. 208 to include a
number of alternative tests, one of
which requires the front passenger air
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 207 / Thursday, October 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
bag system to automatically suppress
when a child or child in a child restraint
system is present. Some manufacturers
rely on weight-based technology to
comply with the automatic air bag
suppression requirement. Weight-based
technologies utilize load cells or other
sensors designed into the vehicle seat.
With this option, the vehicle air bag in
the right front passenger seat is
suppressed when a child or a child in
a child restraint system is placed on the
seat. If an adult occupies the front
passenger seat, the feature enables the
air bag deployment. The threshold for
enabling the air bag deployment is
dependent on the design and calibration
of the suppression system used.
The agency selected certain child
restraint systems to be used for
compliance testing of the air bag
suppression systems. The selected child
restraint systems are included as an
appendix (Appendix A, ‘‘Selection of
child restraint systems’’) in FMVSS No.
208. The list of child restraint systems
is periodically updated to reflect child
restraint systems currently on the
market. On November 19, 2003, the
agency updated the list of child restraint
systems in Appendix A of FMVSS No.
208 (68 FR 65179). FMVSS No. 208
requires that vehicles be certified for
compliance using any of the child
restraint systems in Appendix A.
II. The Petition
On February 11, 2004, the agency
received a petition for rulemaking from
Honda requesting that NHTSA amend
FMVSS No. 213 to limit the weight of
all child restraint systems, including
rear-facing, forward-facing, and
convertible type restraints used by 3year-old children and produced in
accordance with FMVSS No. 213, for
the purpose of maintaining the
appropriate air bag deployment for
small occupants. Honda suggested that,
based on available child restraint system
designs, ‘‘perhaps a weight limit of
about 8.5 kilograms (kg) (18.7 lb) may be
appropriate.’’
As Honda’s petition specifically
addresses the air bag suppression
requirements for child restraints used
with the 3-year-old dummy, NHTSA
notes that manufacturers choosing to
certify to FMVSS No. 208 S21.2, OptionAutomatic suppression feature, must
demonstrate compliance when using
any of the child restraints listed in
sections C and D of FMVSS No. 208
Appendix A. These child restraints
include (1) forward-facing toddler and
forward-facing convertible seats, and (2)
forward-facing toddler/belt positioningbooster seats and belt-positioning
booster seats.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:58 Oct 26, 2005
Jkt 208001
In its petition, Honda stated that it
agrees with NHTSA that it is very
important to periodically update the
child restraint system list in Appendix
A of FMVSS No. 208. However, Honda
claimed that the weight of certain child
restraint system models recommended
for 3-year-old children in the updated
list were heavier than others. Honda
proposed to limit the child restraint
system mass to about 8.5 kg (18.7
pounds). Specifically, the petitioner
stated:
A current, popular system for automatic
suppression of the air bag for the infant and
small child is seat weight detection. If
increasingly heavier CRSs are added to the
market endlessly, the stable and reliable
performance of small occupant detection
systems cannot be achieved. Consequently,
future air bag suppression systems designed
to prevent deployment with infants or small
children in very heavy future CRSs could
also suppress deployment for small adults
such as the AF5 (5th percentile adult female).
We are also concerned that older vehicles
already on the road with suppression systems
calibrated to the lower weights of older CRS
specifications will fail to recognize newer,
heavier designs. This means the air bag could
deploy for an infant or small child in a very
heavy CRS in vehicles calibrated to lighter
weight CRSs that were on the market at the
time the vehicle suppression system was
designed.
Therefore, we believe NHTSA should
amend the FMVSS No. 213, ‘‘Child Restraint
Systems,’’ to limit the weight of all C3Y
(Three-year-old Child Dummy) CRSs
(including rear-facing, forward-facing and
convertible type CRSs) produced in
accordance with FMVSS 213 for the purpose
of maintaining the appropriate airbag
deployment for small occupants. Based on
the CRS designs available, perhaps a weight
limit of about 8.5 kilograms may be
appropriate.
Based on the wide variety of CRS designs
already on the market, Honda does not
believe this simple requirement would
unduly limit CRS designs or performance. A
lighter CRS weight would assist in assuring
the proper operation of weight-based air bag
suppression systems and would add to
consumer convenience and usage by being
easier to carry and install in a vehicle.
III. Data
Honda provided the mass distribution
for the child restraint systems in
Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208. The
weight distribution for these restraints
ranged from about 1.5 kg (3.3 pounds)
for Evenflo Right Fit to about 7.9 kg
(17.4 pounds) for Britax Expressway
ISOFIX, with an average weight of about
4.6 kg (11 pounds). Honda proposed to
limit the child restraint system weight
to about 8.5 kg (18.7 pounds). It is
important to note that as currently
written, FMVSS No. 213 is a
performance standard, and as such, does
not specify any weight limit on
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
61909
particular child restraint system
designs.
While Honda’s petition provided the
weight of the child restraint systems
currently included in Appendix A of
FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA obtained the
weight of a number of varying restraint
designs, either currently available or
available in recent years, including
infant beds, infant seats with and
without a base, convertible child seats,
forward-facing only seats, combination
child and booster seats, and booster
seats child restraints.1 From this list,
NHTSA examined the weights of those
restraints that could possibly be
included in sections C and D of FMVSS
No. 208 Appendix A, and therefore
relevant to the subject petition (e.g.,
forward-facing toddler, forward-facing
convertible seats, forward-facing
toddler/belt positioning-booster seats,
and belt-positioning booster seats).
While the vast majority of these child
restraint systems weigh less than the
Britax Expressway ISOFIX (currently,
the heaviest child restraint system
included in Appendix A of FMVSS No.
208), NHTSA found at least seven child
restraint systems heavier than the Britax
Expressway ISOFIX. Further, six of
these are heavier than the 8.5 kg limit
suggested by Honda in its petition.
IV. Analysis
Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208
specifies a list of child restraint systems
that may be used by NHTSA to test the
air bag suppression systems of a vehicle
that has been certified as complying
with S19, S21, or S23 of FMVSS No.
208. When selecting a child restraint
system to be included in Appendix A,
the agency considers a number of
different factors. These factors are
outlined in the agency’s November
2003, final rule as follows:
In deciding whether to amend Appendix
A, NHTSA will consider a number of factors,
such as whether a particular restraint has
been a high volume model, whether it has
mass and dimensions that are representative
of many restraints on the market, whether its
mass and dimensions represent outliers, and
whether a variety of restraint manufacturers
are represented in the appendix. This
approach will allow us to limit Appendix A
to those restraints that represent large
portions of the CRS market, while including
exceptionally large or small restraints. We
believe a combination of restraints is needed
to assure the robustness of automatic
suppression systems under real world
conditions.
Specifically with respect to Honda’s
concern about the increasing weight of
1 SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. provided the weights of
these varying child restraints to NHTSA. A list of
the restrint make/models and weights has been
submitted separately to this docket.
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
61910
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 207 / Thursday, October 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
child restraint systems, the heaviest
child restraint system selected for
inclusion in Appendix A, as amended
in the November 19, 2003 final rule, is
about 0.5 kg (1.1 lbs) heavier than the
heaviest child restraint system removed
from Appendix A. However, as noted
earlier, the Britax Expressway ISOFIX is
lighter than at least seven other child
restraint systems either currently
available or available in recent years
that could be included in sections C and
D of FMVSS No. 208 Appendix A.
Importantly, NHTSA notes that there is
no single established weight threshold
for all weight-based air bag suppression
systems on the market. The design of
these systems may vary depending on a
number of different parameters, as long
as the system adequately suppresses the
air bag when tested in accordance with
the requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
Honda stated that for weight-based
occupant detection systems used for air
bag suppression, if increasingly heavier
child restraint systems are added to the
market endlessly, the stable and reliable
performance of small occupant
detection systems could not be
achieved. NHTSA does not believe that
the addition of the Britax Expressway
ISOFIX, the heaviest child restraint
system included in Appendix A of
FMVSS No. 208 to date, serves as an
indication that child restraints are
becoming heavier. As noted earlier,
NHTSA has identified at least nine
child restraint systems that are above
the 8.5 kg mass limit proposed by
Honda. However, as FMVSS No. 213
does not require child restraint systems
to meet specific weight limits, NHTSA
does not weigh the restraints as part of
its annual compliance test program. As
such, the agency has no historical data
to show that there is a trend towards
increasingly heavier child restraint
systems as implied by Honda. Further,
Honda did not provide such data in
support of its petition.
The agency did estimate that, in order
to comply with the requirement that all
child restraint systems have hardware
enabling the restraint to attach to the
universal child restraint anchorage
system required in vehicles as a result
of FMVSS No. 225, ‘‘Child restraint
anchorage systems,’’ each child restraint
system would have an incremental
weight increase ranging from less than
0.45 kg (1 pound) to 1.36 kg (3 pounds)
depending on the type of attachment
hardware used.2 To date, virtually all
child restraint systems have adopted the
2 Final Economic Assessment, FMVSS No. 213,
FMVSS No. 225, Child Restraint Systems, Child
Restraint Anchorage Systems. Docket No. NHTSA–
1998–3390–27, Page 44, February 1999.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:58 Oct 26, 2005
Jkt 208001
use of flexible-type attachment
hardware, which only marginally
increases the weight of the child
restraint system. Notably, the heaviest
child restraint system in Appendix A of
FMVSS No. 208-the Britax Expressway
ISOFIX-is a restraint that utilizes a rigid
lower attachment system to connect to
the vehicle anchorages and is designed
for forward-facing use. These rigid
anchorages are typically heavier than
the flexible attachment hardware that is
predominant in current designs.
However, we note that the Britax
Expressway ISOFIX, at 7.9 kg (17.4 lb),
is still significantly lighter than the
heaviest child restraint system
examined by NHTSA-the Britax Super
Elite (a forward-facing seat for children
weighing between 22 and 80 pounds,
equipped with a 5-point harness
restraint system) at 11.6 kg (25.6 lb).
Honda stated that based on the wide
variety of child restraint system designs
already on the market, the company
does not believe a weight limit
requirement would unduly limit child
restraint system design or performance.
However, Honda did not present
evidence to support this claim. Absent
such evidence, there is no way for the
agency to confirm Honda’s assertion. As
noted earlier, FMVSS No. 213-as with
the other FMVSSs-is a performance
standard. The agency does not believe
that it is appropriate to impose designrestrictive requirements that may hinder
the development of safety features for
use in future child restraint system
designs. For example, NHTSA is
conducting ongoing research in the area
of improved side impact protection for
children in crashes in response to the
Transportation Recall, Enhancement,
Accountability and Documentation
(TREAD) Act. NHTSA does not want to
put constraints on potential innovative
designs that could improve safety for
children in this or other areas in the
future, and believes that imposing
design-restrictive parameters for child
restraints-such as imposing a weight
limit as suggested in the subject
petition-could potentially preclude the
development of safety advances. While
FMVSS No. 213 does not currently
specify weight limits on child restraint
designs, the agency notes, as did Honda,
that lighter weight child restraint
systems can be considered more userfriendly in that they are easier to move
from one vehicle to another and from
one seating position to another in the
same vehicle if needed.
Honda stated that it is concerned that
older vehicles that are already on the
road, with suppression systems
calibrated to the lower weights of older
child restraint systems, will fail to
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
recognize newer and heavier child
restraint systems. Honda stated that the
air bag could deploy for an infant or
small child in a very heavy child
restraint system in vehicles calibrated to
lighter weight child restraint systems
that were on the market at the time the
vehicle suppression system was
designed. NHTSA notes that the mass of
the Britax Expressway ISOFIX is only
0.5 kg (1.1 lb) more than the previous
heaviest child restraint system included
in Appendix A. This is a very nominal
increase (approximately 3 percent) in
child restraint mass, and the agency
would expect that the margin of safety
designed into the occupant detection
systems used to control air bag
suppression systems is sufficient to
address such small changes in child
restraint system mass. This is especially
important given that the agency has
identified a number of child restraints
either currently available or available in
the recent past that are heavier- and in
some cases, significantly heavier-than
the Britax Expressway ISOFIX.
While Honda proposed to limit child
restraint system design mass to about
8.5 kg (18.7 lb), it did not provide any
rationale or supporting data to justify
this 8.5 kg limit. This, coupled with the
fact that there is no single established
weight threshold for all weight-based air
bag suppression systems on the market,
does not support the adoption of
Honda’s proposed amendment. The
agency does not have a rationale to
restrict the mass of child restraint
systems to a limit of 8.5 kg at this time.
While NHTSA does not believe that
amendments are necessary at this time,
the agency shares Honda’s concern. As
noted earlier, the agency does not weigh
child restraints as part of the FMVSS
No. 213 compliance test program.
However, the agency does now weigh
these seats for use in (1) developing
future upgrades to Appendix A of
FMVSS No. 208 and (2) the agency’s
Child Restraint Ease of Use Ratings
Program. In addition, we will continue
to monitor developments on this matter
through the Society of Automotive
Engineers-Child Restraint Systems
Standard Committee, whose members
include motor vehicle and motor
vehicle equipment manufacturers, and
child restraint systems manufacturers.
This committee has been and continues
to be in dialog on this subject, and we
will ensure that the concerns are well
communicated.
VI. Conclusion
The agency has clearly noted the
composition of Appendix A is intended
to represent large portions of the child
restraint system market, while including
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 207 / Thursday, October 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
exceptionally large or small restraints.
This combination of restraints is needed
to assure the robustness of automatic
suppression systems under real world
conditions. It is also important to note
that when Appendix A was amended in
November 2003, the Britax Expressway
ISOFIX was unique in design, in that it
was the only child restraint system
available with rigid Lower Anchors and
Tethers for Children (LATCH)
attachments. While the agency has
identified a small percentage of child
restraint systems that weigh more than
the Britax Expressway ISOFIX, the
inclusion of heavier child restraint
system designs is not inconsistent with
the intent of Appendix A of FMVSS No.
208. Further, while the Britax
Expressway ISOFIX is approximately
0.5 kg (1.1 lb) heavier than the heaviest
child restraint system that was removed
from Appendix A as amended in the
November 2003 final rule, the agency
does not consider this to be an
indication that child restraint system
designs are increasing in weight.
As noted earlier, FMVSS No. 213 is a
performance standard, and does not
specify particular design constraints
such as mass and/or dimensions. Honda
did not provide any rationale for its
proposal to limit child restraint system
designs to a maximum of 8.5 kg (18.7
lb). NHTSA has not identified any realworld data to support the need to limit
the weight of child restraint systems,
and specifically as it relates to the
performance of occupant detection
systems for automatic air bag
suppression. Further, specification of a
child restraint system mass limit, when
considered in conjunction with the
mass of the dummy used in air bag
suppression testing, would effectively
establish a weight threshold for weightbased air bag suppression systems. It is
not the intent of the agency to specify
such a threshold. Each vehicle
manufacturer is responsible for meeting
the requirements of FMVSS No. 208
when using any of the child restraint
systems listed in Appendix A.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA is denying Honda’s petition for
rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 213 to
adopt a design weight limit for child
restraint systems used with the 3-yearold dummy. In accordance with 49 CFR
Part 552, this completes the agency’s
review of the petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:58 Oct 26, 2005
Jkt 208001
Issued on: October 13, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05–21465 Filed 10–26–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 222 and 223
[Docket No.050922245–5276–02; I.D.
092005A, 100505D]
RIN 0648–AT89
Sea Turtle Conservation; Shrimp
Trawling Requirements
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this temporary
rule to allow shrimp fishermen to
continue to use limited tow times as an
alternative to Turtle Excluder Devices
(TEDs) in inshore and offshore waters
from the Florida/Alabama border,
westward to the boundary shared by
Matagorda and Brazoria Counties,
Texas, and extending offshore 50
nautical miles, as initially authorized in
rules published on September 28 and
October 14, 2005. This action is
necessary because environmental
conditions resulting from Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita persist on the fishing
grounds, preventing some fishermen
from using TEDs effectively.
DATES: Effective from October 24, 2005,
through 11:59 p.m, local time,
November 23, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the
Environmental Assessment on this
action should be addressed to the Chief,
Marine Mammal Division, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Barnette, 727–551–5794.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
All sea turtles that occur in U.S.
waters are listed as either endangered or
threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The Kemp’s
ridley (Lepidochelys kempii),
leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and
hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata)
turtles are listed as endangered. The
loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
61911
(Chelonia mydas) turtles are listed as
threatened, except for breeding
populations of green turtles in Florida
and on the Pacific coast of Mexico,
which are listed as endangered.
Sea turtles are incidentally taken, and
some are killed, as a result of numerous
activities, including fishery-related
trawling activities in the Gulf of Mexico
and along the Atlantic seaboard. Under
the ESA and its implementing
regulations, the taking of sea turtles is
prohibited, with exceptions identified
in 50 CFR 223.206(d), or according to
the terms and conditions of a biological
opinion issued under section 7 of the
ESA, or according to an incidental take
permit issued under section 10 of the
ESA. The incidental taking of turtles
during shrimp or summer flounder
trawling is exempted from the taking
prohibition of section 9 of the ESA if the
conservation measures specified in the
sea turtle conservation regulations (50
CFR 223) are followed. The regulations
require most shrimp trawlers and
summer flounder trawlers operating in
the southeastern United States (Atlantic
area, Gulf area, and summer flounder
sea turtle protection area, see 50 CFR
223.206) to have a NMFS-approved TED
installed in each net that is rigged for
fishing to allow sea turtles to escape.
TEDs currently approved by NMFS
include single-grid hard TEDs and
hooped hard TEDs conforming to a
generic description, the flounder TED,
and one type of soft TED the Parker soft
TED (see 50 CFR 223.207).
TEDs incorporate an escape opening,
usually covered by a webbing flap,
which allows sea turtles to escape from
trawl nets. To be approved by NMFS, a
TED design must be shown to be 97
percent effective in excluding sea turtles
during testing based upon specific
testing protocols (50 CFR 223.207(e)(1)).
Most approved hard TEDs are described
in the regulations (50 CFR 223.207(a))
according to generic criteria based upon
certain parameters of TED design,
configuration, and installation,
including height and width dimensions
of the TED opening through which the
turtles escape.
The regulations governing sea turtle
take prohibitions and exemptions
provide for the use of limited tow times
as an alternative to the use of TEDs for
vessels with certain specified
characteristics or under certain special
circumstances. The provisions of 50
CFR 223.206(d)(3)(ii) specify that the
NOAA Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries (AA) may authorize
compliance with tow time restrictions
as an alternative to the TED requirement
if the AA determines that the presence
of algae, seaweed, debris, or other
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61908-61911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21465]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2005-21048]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (Honda), to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child restraint systems.'' Honda requested
that FMVSS No. 213 be amended to limit the weight of all child
restraint systems used with the 3-year-old dummy. Honda stated that
such an amendment would assure the proper operation of weight-based
occupant detection systems used to meet the air bag suppression
requirements of FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For Non-Legal Issues: Mr. Tewabe Asebe, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2365.
For Legal Issues: Mr. Chris Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2992, Facsimile: (202)
366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 12, 2000, NHTSA issued a final rule for advanced air bags,
amending FMVSS No. 208 to, among other things, minimize injuries to
small adults and young children due to air bag deployment (65 FR
30680). To address the risk air bags pose to young children in child
restraint systems, the agency amended FMVSS No. 208 to include a number
of alternative tests, one of which requires the front passenger air
[[Page 61909]]
bag system to automatically suppress when a child or child in a child
restraint system is present. Some manufacturers rely on weight-based
technology to comply with the automatic air bag suppression
requirement. Weight-based technologies utilize load cells or other
sensors designed into the vehicle seat. With this option, the vehicle
air bag in the right front passenger seat is suppressed when a child or
a child in a child restraint system is placed on the seat. If an adult
occupies the front passenger seat, the feature enables the air bag
deployment. The threshold for enabling the air bag deployment is
dependent on the design and calibration of the suppression system used.
The agency selected certain child restraint systems to be used for
compliance testing of the air bag suppression systems. The selected
child restraint systems are included as an appendix (Appendix A,
``Selection of child restraint systems'') in FMVSS No. 208. The list of
child restraint systems is periodically updated to reflect child
restraint systems currently on the market. On November 19, 2003, the
agency updated the list of child restraint systems in Appendix A of
FMVSS No. 208 (68 FR 65179). FMVSS No. 208 requires that vehicles be
certified for compliance using any of the child restraint systems in
Appendix A.
II. The Petition
On February 11, 2004, the agency received a petition for rulemaking
from Honda requesting that NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 213 to limit the
weight of all child restraint systems, including rear-facing, forward-
facing, and convertible type restraints used by 3-year-old children and
produced in accordance with FMVSS No. 213, for the purpose of
maintaining the appropriate air bag deployment for small occupants.
Honda suggested that, based on available child restraint system
designs, ``perhaps a weight limit of about 8.5 kilograms (kg) (18.7 lb)
may be appropriate.''
As Honda's petition specifically addresses the air bag suppression
requirements for child restraints used with the 3-year-old dummy, NHTSA
notes that manufacturers choosing to certify to FMVSS No. 208 S21.2,
Option-Automatic suppression feature, must demonstrate compliance when
using any of the child restraints listed in sections C and D of FMVSS
No. 208 Appendix A. These child restraints include (1) forward-facing
toddler and forward-facing convertible seats, and (2) forward-facing
toddler/belt positioning-booster seats and belt-positioning booster
seats.
In its petition, Honda stated that it agrees with NHTSA that it is
very important to periodically update the child restraint system list
in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208. However, Honda claimed that the weight
of certain child restraint system models recommended for 3-year-old
children in the updated list were heavier than others. Honda proposed
to limit the child restraint system mass to about 8.5 kg (18.7 pounds).
Specifically, the petitioner stated:
A current, popular system for automatic suppression of the air
bag for the infant and small child is seat weight detection. If
increasingly heavier CRSs are added to the market endlessly, the
stable and reliable performance of small occupant detection systems
cannot be achieved. Consequently, future air bag suppression systems
designed to prevent deployment with infants or small children in
very heavy future CRSs could also suppress deployment for small
adults such as the AF5 (5th percentile adult female). We are also
concerned that older vehicles already on the road with suppression
systems calibrated to the lower weights of older CRS specifications
will fail to recognize newer, heavier designs. This means the air
bag could deploy for an infant or small child in a very heavy CRS in
vehicles calibrated to lighter weight CRSs that were on the market
at the time the vehicle suppression system was designed.
Therefore, we believe NHTSA should amend the FMVSS No. 213,
``Child Restraint Systems,'' to limit the weight of all C3Y (Three-
year-old Child Dummy) CRSs (including rear-facing, forward-facing
and convertible type CRSs) produced in accordance with FMVSS 213 for
the purpose of maintaining the appropriate airbag deployment for
small occupants. Based on the CRS designs available, perhaps a
weight limit of about 8.5 kilograms may be appropriate.
Based on the wide variety of CRS designs already on the market,
Honda does not believe this simple requirement would unduly limit
CRS designs or performance. A lighter CRS weight would assist in
assuring the proper operation of weight-based air bag suppression
systems and would add to consumer convenience and usage by being
easier to carry and install in a vehicle.
III. Data
Honda provided the mass distribution for the child restraint
systems in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208. The weight distribution for
these restraints ranged from about 1.5 kg (3.3 pounds) for Evenflo
Right Fit to about 7.9 kg (17.4 pounds) for Britax Expressway ISOFIX,
with an average weight of about 4.6 kg (11 pounds). Honda proposed to
limit the child restraint system weight to about 8.5 kg (18.7 pounds).
It is important to note that as currently written, FMVSS No. 213 is a
performance standard, and as such, does not specify any weight limit on
particular child restraint system designs.
While Honda's petition provided the weight of the child restraint
systems currently included in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA
obtained the weight of a number of varying restraint designs, either
currently available or available in recent years, including infant
beds, infant seats with and without a base, convertible child seats,
forward-facing only seats, combination child and booster seats, and
booster seats child restraints.\1\ From this list, NHTSA examined the
weights of those restraints that could possibly be included in sections
C and D of FMVSS No. 208 Appendix A, and therefore relevant to the
subject petition (e.g., forward-facing toddler, forward-facing
convertible seats, forward-facing toddler/belt positioning-booster
seats, and belt-positioning booster seats). While the vast majority of
these child restraint systems weigh less than the Britax Expressway
ISOFIX (currently, the heaviest child restraint system included in
Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208), NHTSA found at least seven child
restraint systems heavier than the Britax Expressway ISOFIX. Further,
six of these are heavier than the 8.5 kg limit suggested by Honda in
its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. provided the weights of these varying
child restraints to NHTSA. A list of the restrint make/models and
weights has been submitted separately to this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Analysis
Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208 specifies a list of child restraint
systems that may be used by NHTSA to test the air bag suppression
systems of a vehicle that has been certified as complying with S19,
S21, or S23 of FMVSS No. 208. When selecting a child restraint system
to be included in Appendix A, the agency considers a number of
different factors. These factors are outlined in the agency's November
2003, final rule as follows:
In deciding whether to amend Appendix A, NHTSA will consider a
number of factors, such as whether a particular restraint has been a
high volume model, whether it has mass and dimensions that are
representative of many restraints on the market, whether its mass
and dimensions represent outliers, and whether a variety of
restraint manufacturers are represented in the appendix. This
approach will allow us to limit Appendix A to those restraints that
represent large portions of the CRS market, while including
exceptionally large or small restraints. We believe a combination of
restraints is needed to assure the robustness of automatic
suppression systems under real world conditions.
Specifically with respect to Honda's concern about the increasing
weight of
[[Page 61910]]
child restraint systems, the heaviest child restraint system selected
for inclusion in Appendix A, as amended in the November 19, 2003 final
rule, is about 0.5 kg (1.1 lbs) heavier than the heaviest child
restraint system removed from Appendix A. However, as noted earlier,
the Britax Expressway ISOFIX is lighter than at least seven other child
restraint systems either currently available or available in recent
years that could be included in sections C and D of FMVSS No. 208
Appendix A. Importantly, NHTSA notes that there is no single
established weight threshold for all weight-based air bag suppression
systems on the market. The design of these systems may vary depending
on a number of different parameters, as long as the system adequately
suppresses the air bag when tested in accordance with the requirements
of FMVSS No. 208.
Honda stated that for weight-based occupant detection systems used
for air bag suppression, if increasingly heavier child restraint
systems are added to the market endlessly, the stable and reliable
performance of small occupant detection systems could not be achieved.
NHTSA does not believe that the addition of the Britax Expressway
ISOFIX, the heaviest child restraint system included in Appendix A of
FMVSS No. 208 to date, serves as an indication that child restraints
are becoming heavier. As noted earlier, NHTSA has identified at least
nine child restraint systems that are above the 8.5 kg mass limit
proposed by Honda. However, as FMVSS No. 213 does not require child
restraint systems to meet specific weight limits, NHTSA does not weigh
the restraints as part of its annual compliance test program. As such,
the agency has no historical data to show that there is a trend towards
increasingly heavier child restraint systems as implied by Honda.
Further, Honda did not provide such data in support of its petition.
The agency did estimate that, in order to comply with the
requirement that all child restraint systems have hardware enabling the
restraint to attach to the universal child restraint anchorage system
required in vehicles as a result of FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint
anchorage systems,'' each child restraint system would have an
incremental weight increase ranging from less than 0.45 kg (1 pound) to
1.36 kg (3 pounds) depending on the type of attachment hardware
used.\2\ To date, virtually all child restraint systems have adopted
the use of flexible-type attachment hardware, which only marginally
increases the weight of the child restraint system. Notably, the
heaviest child restraint system in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208-the
Britax Expressway ISOFIX-is a restraint that utilizes a rigid lower
attachment system to connect to the vehicle anchorages and is designed
for forward-facing use. These rigid anchorages are typically heavier
than the flexible attachment hardware that is predominant in current
designs. However, we note that the Britax Expressway ISOFIX, at 7.9 kg
(17.4 lb), is still significantly lighter than the heaviest child
restraint system examined by NHTSA-the Britax Super Elite (a forward-
facing seat for children weighing between 22 and 80 pounds, equipped
with a 5-point harness restraint system) at 11.6 kg (25.6 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Final Economic Assessment, FMVSS No. 213, FMVSS No. 225,
Child Restraint Systems, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems. Docket
No. NHTSA-1998-3390-27, Page 44, February 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honda stated that based on the wide variety of child restraint
system designs already on the market, the company does not believe a
weight limit requirement would unduly limit child restraint system
design or performance. However, Honda did not present evidence to
support this claim. Absent such evidence, there is no way for the
agency to confirm Honda's assertion. As noted earlier, FMVSS No. 213-as
with the other FMVSSs-is a performance standard. The agency does not
believe that it is appropriate to impose design-restrictive
requirements that may hinder the development of safety features for use
in future child restraint system designs. For example, NHTSA is
conducting ongoing research in the area of improved side impact
protection for children in crashes in response to the Transportation
Recall, Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act.
NHTSA does not want to put constraints on potential innovative designs
that could improve safety for children in this or other areas in the
future, and believes that imposing design-restrictive parameters for
child restraints-such as imposing a weight limit as suggested in the
subject petition-could potentially preclude the development of safety
advances. While FMVSS No. 213 does not currently specify weight limits
on child restraint designs, the agency notes, as did Honda, that
lighter weight child restraint systems can be considered more user-
friendly in that they are easier to move from one vehicle to another
and from one seating position to another in the same vehicle if needed.
Honda stated that it is concerned that older vehicles that are
already on the road, with suppression systems calibrated to the lower
weights of older child restraint systems, will fail to recognize newer
and heavier child restraint systems. Honda stated that the air bag
could deploy for an infant or small child in a very heavy child
restraint system in vehicles calibrated to lighter weight child
restraint systems that were on the market at the time the vehicle
suppression system was designed. NHTSA notes that the mass of the
Britax Expressway ISOFIX is only 0.5 kg (1.1 lb) more than the previous
heaviest child restraint system included in Appendix A. This is a very
nominal increase (approximately 3 percent) in child restraint mass, and
the agency would expect that the margin of safety designed into the
occupant detection systems used to control air bag suppression systems
is sufficient to address such small changes in child restraint system
mass. This is especially important given that the agency has identified
a number of child restraints either currently available or available in
the recent past that are heavier- and in some cases, significantly
heavier-than the Britax Expressway ISOFIX.
While Honda proposed to limit child restraint system design mass to
about 8.5 kg (18.7 lb), it did not provide any rationale or supporting
data to justify this 8.5 kg limit. This, coupled with the fact that
there is no single established weight threshold for all weight-based
air bag suppression systems on the market, does not support the
adoption of Honda's proposed amendment. The agency does not have a
rationale to restrict the mass of child restraint systems to a limit of
8.5 kg at this time.
While NHTSA does not believe that amendments are necessary at this
time, the agency shares Honda's concern. As noted earlier, the agency
does not weigh child restraints as part of the FMVSS No. 213 compliance
test program. However, the agency does now weigh these seats for use in
(1) developing future upgrades to Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208 and (2)
the agency's Child Restraint Ease of Use Ratings Program. In addition,
we will continue to monitor developments on this matter through the
Society of Automotive Engineers-Child Restraint Systems Standard
Committee, whose members include motor vehicle and motor vehicle
equipment manufacturers, and child restraint systems manufacturers.
This committee has been and continues to be in dialog on this subject,
and we will ensure that the concerns are well communicated.
VI. Conclusion
The agency has clearly noted the composition of Appendix A is
intended to represent large portions of the child restraint system
market, while including
[[Page 61911]]
exceptionally large or small restraints. This combination of restraints
is needed to assure the robustness of automatic suppression systems
under real world conditions. It is also important to note that when
Appendix A was amended in November 2003, the Britax Expressway ISOFIX
was unique in design, in that it was the only child restraint system
available with rigid Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH)
attachments. While the agency has identified a small percentage of
child restraint systems that weigh more than the Britax Expressway
ISOFIX, the inclusion of heavier child restraint system designs is not
inconsistent with the intent of Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208. Further,
while the Britax Expressway ISOFIX is approximately 0.5 kg (1.1 lb)
heavier than the heaviest child restraint system that was removed from
Appendix A as amended in the November 2003 final rule, the agency does
not consider this to be an indication that child restraint system
designs are increasing in weight.
As noted earlier, FMVSS No. 213 is a performance standard, and does
not specify particular design constraints such as mass and/or
dimensions. Honda did not provide any rationale for its proposal to
limit child restraint system designs to a maximum of 8.5 kg (18.7 lb).
NHTSA has not identified any real-world data to support the need to
limit the weight of child restraint systems, and specifically as it
relates to the performance of occupant detection systems for automatic
air bag suppression. Further, specification of a child restraint system
mass limit, when considered in conjunction with the mass of the dummy
used in air bag suppression testing, would effectively establish a
weight threshold for weight-based air bag suppression systems. It is
not the intent of the agency to specify such a threshold. Each vehicle
manufacturer is responsible for meeting the requirements of FMVSS No.
208 when using any of the child restraint systems listed in Appendix A.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is denying Honda's
petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 213 to adopt a design weight
limit for child restraint systems used with the 3-year-old dummy. In
accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, this completes the agency's review of
the petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: October 13, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-21465 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
