Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Designated Seating Positions and Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 58887-58898 [E8-23577]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 8, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58887-58898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23577]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2008-0059]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today's final rule amends the definition of the term, 
``designated seating position,'' as used in the Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards (FMVSS), to indicate more clearly which areas within 
the interior of a vehicle meet that definition. Today's final rule also 
establishes a calculation procedure for determining the number of 
designated seating positions at a seat location for trucks and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating less 
than 10,000 lbs, passenger cars, and buses. Further, this document 
eliminates the existing exclusion of auxiliary seats (i.e., temporary 
or folding jump seats) from the definition of ``designated seating 
position.'' Today's final rule encourages manufacturers to use a 
variety of visual cues in the design of the vehicle interior to help 
improve occupant awareness as to which areas of a vehicle are not 
intended to be used as seating positions. This will help to ensure that 
occupants sit in locations where they are afforded the crash protection 
required by the FMVSSs.

DATES: The effective date of this final rule is December 8, 2008. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 8, 
2008.
    Petitions for reconsideration must be received not later than 
November 24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Petitions must be submitted to: Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Chris Wiacek of the NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards by 
telephone at (202) 366-4801, and by fax at (202) 493-2290.

[[Page 58888]]

    For legal issues, you may contact Ed Glancy 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, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
II. Public Comments on Proposal
III. Final Rule
    A. Changes Since the NPRM
    B. ``Designated Seating position''
    C. Measuring Seating Surface
    D. Calculating the Number of Designated Seating Positions
    E. Auxiliary Seating and Seat Belt Anchorages
IV. Benefits and Costs
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Effective Date
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On June 22, 2005, the agency published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) in which we proposed a revised definition of 
``designated seating position'' (DSP) and a calculation procedure for 
determining the number of seating positions at a seat location (70 Fed. 
Reg. 36094; Docket No. NHTSA 2005-21600). The NPRM focused on two main 
objectives:
    (1) To provide a more objective definition of DSP and a more 
objective method for determining the number of DSPs at a seating 
location; and
    (2) To eliminate the existing exclusion of auxiliary seats from the 
DSP definition so that all seating locations intended to be used while 
a vehicle is in motion provide the appropriate levels of crash 
protection.
    The designation of a seating position is important for a variety of 
reasons. Under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs), 
motor vehicle manufacturers must meet various performance requirements 
for each position designated as a seating position. For example, FMVSS 
No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' requires that each designated 
seating position, as defined in Sec.  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, one or more occupants would not be protected by 
safety belts and/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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation (PRE) that accompanied the 
NPRM indicated that, in some vehicles, the number of DSPs did not 
reflect real world occupancy. Crash data revealed instances in which 
three passengers were occupying seats designated as having only two 
seating positions (2-DSP seats). As a result, one of the occupants was 
not afforded the crash protection required at a DSP, namely, a safety 
belt system. Further, data indicated a drop in seat belt usage rate for 
these cases from 53.3 percent to 27.7 percent due to a third occupant 
seated at a location without a restraint.
    In addition to the crash data, the agency received numerous 
complaints from vehicle purchasers that the number of DSPs at some rear 
bench seats was not readily obvious. These bench seats were designated 
as having fewer seating positions than purchasers recognized, i.e., at 
the time of sale, purchasers believed these bench seats were large 
enough to seat three people and assumed that there were seat belts for 
all of them when in fact the seats had only 2-DSPs and thus seat belts 
for only two people. Based on the crash data and complaints, we 
proposed revisions to the ``designated seating position'' definition 
intending to aid manufacturers and vehicle purchasers in judging 
whether a location is or should be a DSP and in determining the number 
of DSPs at a given location.
    The agency proposed to remove the language in the definition that 
defined a DSP as a location that is ``likely to be used'' as a seat 
while a vehicle is in motion and that meets a hip room metric, based on 
the hip dimensions of a 5th percentile adult female. We also proposed 
that the number of DSPs at a location would be calculated using a hip 
room measurement. Under the proposal, the measured width of a location 
and thus the number of DSPs could be limited by the installation of 
specified features, i.e., voids or impediments, to indicate that a 
portion of a location was not intended to be used as a seating surface. 
The characteristics of these voids and impediments were based on those 
features that appeared to have the practical effect of limiting 
occupancy to the intended number of DSPs in a surveyed fleet. As 
explained in the NPRM, the agency's intent was not to require 
manufacturers to increase the number of DSPs in vehicles, but to 
provide a clearer physical indication of the actual number of locations 
at which crash protection features are provided.
    To further ensure that vehicle occupants are provided with 
appropriate crash protection, the agency also proposed to eliminate the 
exclusion of auxiliary seats from the definition of DSP. Since these 
seats are generally designed to be used when the vehicle is in motion, 
their occupants need crash protection just as those in other seats do. 
However, because these types of seats are not currently regarded as 
DSPs, manufacturers are not required to provide crash protection such 
as safety belts or lower anchorages and tethers for child seats (LATCH 
systems) at those locations.

II. Public Comments on Proposal

    In response to the NPRM, the agency received comments from a 
variety of organizations. Comment were submitted by the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance); General Motors; Subaru; Hyundai; 
Nissan; the Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA); Recreation Vehicle 
Industry Association (RVIA); Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Association 
(FAMA); Fleetwood Enterprises, a motor home manufacturer; Flexsteel 
Industries, Inc., a seat manufacturer; Insurance Institute for Highway 
Safety (IIHS); Safety Research and Strategies (SRS), a research 
organization; and Public Citizen, a public interest organization.
    The commenters generally supported the establishment of a 
``designated seating position'' definition that provided greater 
specificity. However, all but IIHS raised concern over the definition 
and calculation procedure for determining the number of designated 
seating positions proposed in the NPRM.
    The motor vehicle manufacturers and the Alliance expressed concern 
that the proposed revisions to the DSP definition, particularly the 
calculation procedure, would have unintended consequences. General 
Motors stated that several front row bucket seats would be classified 
as having 2-DSPs, instead of 1-DSP, under the proposal. The Alliance 
stated that the void and impediment countermeasures could force 
passengers to sit farther outboard, potentially affecting their 
protection in a side impact. Hyundai and Nissan stated that the 
proposed revisions would require redesign of vehicles, which would 
necessitate at least three years of lead time.
    TMA and FAMA both commented that the proposal, if made final, would 
impede the unique functions of many commercial and emergency vehicles. 
RVIA, Flexsteel, and Fleetwood stated that the proposed procedure for 
calculating the number of DSPs would limit the functionality of the 
seating positions in their vehicles by requiring

[[Page 58889]]

either the designation of additional DSPs and the addition of an equal 
number of seat belts or the addition of a countermeasure. These 
commenters stated that such design changes would interfere with the 
functional nature of motor home seats and furnishings. RVIA also 
expressed concern that the elimination of the language ``likely to be 
used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion'' would have 
the effect of eliminating the option under FMVSS No. 207, ``Seating 
systems,'' of placing a label on a seating location stating that it is 
not to be used while the vehicle is in motion, instead of designating 
the location as a DSP and installing a seat belt.
    Safety Research and Strategies and Public Citizen questioned the 
benefits of the proposed revisions. Safety Research and Strategies 
stated that the void and impediment countermeasures were not supported 
by human factors analysis, and were based on vehicles with low numbers 
of registrations. They also said that the agency did not perform a 
statistical analysis of the degree of confidence of the number of 
incidents of the vehicles.\2\ Public Citizen questioned the proposal's 
use of countermeasures in the measurement for determining the number of 
DSPs, and stated that unless seat belts were required, as opposed to 
design elements that would reduce seating space, there would be no 
benefits associated with the proposal. Both Safety Research and 
Strategies and Public Citizen commented that the agency did not provide 
a basis for asserting that the proposed definition of DSP and the 
associated procedure would preempt State law, including State tort law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Safety Research and Strategies also stated that its analysis 
of the data indicated that the incident rate of three occupants 
seated at the 2-DSP rear seat of the Acura Integra 2-Door was twice 
as high as presented in the PRE. The incident rates of the Acura 
were relied upon by the agency in developing the impediment 
countermeasure. However, it is unclear whether Safety Research and 
Strategies evaluated data from the same period as in the agency's 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional issues raised by commenters are discussed below in the 
discussion of the final rule.

III. Final Rule

A. Changes Since the NPRM

    When the agency issued the NPRM in mid-2005, we raised concern that 
some motor vehicle seat designs were not indicative of their intended 
occupancy. Data from 1997 through 2001 indicated that real world 
occupancy rates were exceeding the number of designated seating 
positions, particularly on bench and split bench seats. Since 2001, 
vehicle seat designs have changed.
    As discussed above, the agency received complaints from vehicle 
purchasers regarding the actual number of DSPs at rear bench seats. At 
the time of the agency investigation in 2001, NHTSA received a 
complaint from a safety research consultant concerning the rear seat of 
the 2-door Ford Explorer. Ford submitted information indicating that 35 
consumers had complained that they had thought that vehicle had rear 
seating for three people and were surprised to learn that there were 
only 2 DSPs.
    The most notable change since 2001 has been a decrease in the size 
of 2-DSP seat locations. The width of the average seating surface for a 
2-DSP seating location in MY 2001 sports utility vehicles surveyed by 
the agency was 1,118 mm (44 inches). The width of the average seating 
surface for a 2-DSP seating location in comparable MY 2006 vehicles 
surveyed by the agency was 979 mm (38.5 inches). Both values reflect 
the measurement method in this final rule. The reduced seat size more 
clearly indicates to occupants the capacity for which crash protection 
is provided.
    Based on changes to current seat design and the comments received 
in response to the NPRM, today's document adopts the agency's proposal, 
but with several changes.

B. ``Designated Seating Position''

    Consistent with the proposal, the agency is adopting a definition 
of ``designated seating position'' that is based on the hip measurement 
of a 5th percentile adult female. However, instead of relying on a hip 
room measurement, today's final rule incorporates a measurement of 
seating surface (e.g., surface width) that corresponds to a 5th 
percentile adult female.
    As explained in the NPRM, ``designated seating position'' is 
currently 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 [.]

(49 CFR 571.3(b).)

    The NPRM proposed to rely expressly on the hip room dimensions for 
a 5th percentile adult female, instead of the somewhat less precise 
criteria of being large enough to accommodate such a person. The 
proposed definition measured available hip room 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 also proposed to eliminate the ``likely to be used'' 
qualification in the definition. We believe that this language was 
insufficiently precise to provide a completely useful guide as to which 
positions must be considered DSPs. In proposing to eliminate that 
qualification, we recognized that it is not practicable to design a 
vehicle to prevent all potential occupant misuse of interior positions. 
However, as we stated in the NPRM, 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 owners' manuals are replete with 
exhortations about the importance of always wearing a safety belt. 
Further, the warning label required to be on the sun 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 82 percent in 2005, an all time high. Nevertheless, the 
agency was aware that some vehicles had certain locations that were not 
equipped with crash protection and that might have given the appearance 
of being seating positions, thereby encouraging their use by 
passengers. The ``likely to be used'' language did not provide a 
sufficiently objective method of resolving these difficult cases.
    Commenters generally focused on the calculation procedure for 
determining the number of DSPs at a location, and did not provide much 
comment on the proposed revision to the ``designated seating position'' 
definition in 49 CFR 571.3(b). Commenters raised issue with the 
procedure for measuring hip room specified in the proposed 49 CFR 
571.10, which was referenced in the proposed ``designated seating 
position'' definition. As explained in greater detail below, the final 
definition in Sec.  571.3(b) and procedure in Sec.  571.10 adopted in 
this document rely on the width of the seating surface, as opposed to 
the proposed hip room measurement.
    Under the definition adopted today, a seat location is regarded as 
having at

[[Page 58890]]

least one DSP if it has a seat surface width of at least 330 mm (13 
inches). Three hundred and thirty millimeters is consistent with the 
hip dimensions of a 5th percentile adult female.\3\ We believe that the 
actual seat surface width is more reflective of a location's ability to 
accommodate an occupant than the proposed hip room measurement. The 
proposed hip room measurement potentially included voids between a seat 
and interior vehicle trim (e.g., the space between a seat and the 
inside of a door), or locations underneath trim (e.g., an arm rest) 
that would be unlikely to accommodate a seated occupant. The method for 
measuring the width of a seat surface is specified in Sec.  571.10, as 
well as the procedure for determining the number of DSPs at a seat 
location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Measuring Seating Surface

    Today's final rule establishes a procedure for measuring seating 
surface width and places it in new section, Sec.  571.10, Designation 
of Seating Positions. The seating surface measurement is used, in part, 
to determine if a seat location is large enough for a least one 
designated seating position. Once a seat location is identified as a 
``designated seating position,'' the seat surface measurement is then 
used in light vehicles to determine the number of DSPs at that 
location.
    The NPRM relied on hip room in determining whether a location is a 
DSP, and the number of DSPs at that location. The proposed Sec.  571.10 
set out, with several modifications, the procedure in SAE Recommended 
Practice J1100 rev. February 2001 ``Motor Vehicle Dimensions.'' The 
proposed procedure in Sec.  571.10 differed from the SAE procedure in 
that the agency's method would use the H-point as a reference as 
opposed to the seating reference point. Additionally, while the SAE 
procedure uses the minimum dimension measured laterally between the 
interior trim of a vehicle on the ``X'' plane through the seating 
reference point, we proposed using a maximum dimension.
    Under the proposal, hip room was to be considered continuous unless 
there was a separation greater than 150 mm (5.9 inches) between 
adjacent seat cushions, or between a seat cushion and the vehicle 
interior, and the separation contained 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, and that extends more than two-thirds of the 
horizontal depth of the seat cushion;
    (2) A void that can accommodate a rectangular box 150 mm (5.9 
inches) wide, 150 mm (5.9 inches) high, and two thirds the horizontal 
depth of the seat cushion in length, such that the box is sitting 2 mm 
(0.08 inches) below each point on the top profile of the seat cushion; 
or
    (3) A parking brake or gear shift handle, that, when placed in the 
lowest possible position, is not less than 25 mm (1.0 inches) higher 
than the highest point of the seat cushion.
    Commenters raised a number of issues with the proposed procedure 
for measuring a seat location. Manufacturers commented that the 
proposed measuring procedure would result in a variety of unintended 
consequences. Manufacturers, Safety Research and Strategies, and Public 
Citizen questioned whether the countermeasures for terminating a 
measurement, i.e., a void or specified impediment, would in fact have 
the effect of limiting the number of occupants to the number of DSPs.
    Manufacturers stated that use of the maximum hip room measurement 
under the revised SAE procedure would result in an increase in the 
number of DSPs at seat locations. The Alliance and General Motors 
commented that front row bucket seats in several vehicles are not 
separated by any of the proposed countermeasures, and accordingly would 
become considered as having 3 DSPs. These commenters stated that the 
crash data focused on bench and split bench seats and that the agency 
did not demonstrate any problem with bucket seats. Further, the 
Alliance, General Motors, and Flexsteel Industries stated that the 
measurement at many locations would include the void between two seats 
and the void between the seat and interior trim. These commenters 
stated that additional space cannot accommodate an occupant, but would 
nevertheless be included in the calculation for determining the number 
of DSPs at a location. Subaru noted that the measurement as specified 
may in some instances measure the area underneath an arm rest, which 
provides an obvious impediment to seating.
    Safety Research and Strategies and Public Citizen stated that the 
agency did not have any human factors data to demonstrate that the 
proposed countermeasures would influence the seating behavior of 
occupants. Safety Research and Strategies stated that the agency based 
the countermeasures on interior designs of low volume vehicles, which 
did not provide a sufficient vehicle population for determining the 
effectiveness of the countermeasures.
1. Measuring Procedure
    The agency is adopting a procedure for measuring a seat surface for 
the purpose of determining the presence of a DSP location and the 
number of DSPs at that location. Seating surface width is reflective of 
the actual area available to accommodate an occupant. For example, the 
procedure adopted today would not include a void between a seating 
surface and the door trim as part of the seating area. Under the final 
rule adopted today, seating surface width is the maximum width of a 
seating surface measured in a zone extending from a transverse vertical 
plane 150 mm (5.9 inches) behind the front leading surface of that 
seating surface to a transverse vertical plane 250 mm (9.8 inches) 
behind that front leading surface, measured horizontally and 
longitudinally.\4\ Using the seating surface avoids the unintended 
consequences of the proposal, i.e., increasing the calculated vehicle 
seating capacity. Those consequences would have occurred under the 
proposal because the maximum H-point measurement included aspects or 
areas of the vehicle such as arm rests molded into the side trim that 
cannot be used as part of a seating surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The dimensions of this zone are based on the definition in 
S16.3.1.12 of FMVSS No. 208 of the term ``seat cushion reference 
point'' (SCRP). The term is defined as meaning a point placed on the 
outboard side of the seat cushion at a horizontal distance between 
150 mm (5.9 in) and 250 mm (9.8 in) from the front edge of the seat 
used as a guide in positioning the seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Noting that the proposed H-point measurement may vary depending on 
seat adjustment, Subaru requested that the agency specify an adjustment 
procedure prior to measuring hip room. The use of a seating surface 
measurement will be less affected by seat position than the proposed H-
point measurement. In addition, today's final rule specifies that 
folding, removable, and adjustable seats are measured in the 
configuration which results in the single largest maximum seating 
surface width.
    In addition to providing a measurement more reflective of a 
vehicle's seating area, reliance on seating surface width will, in 
part, avoid the unintended consequences of the proposed hip-room 
measurement. Based on an agency survey of vehicles, the agency 
determined that reliance on seating surface width will result in bucket 
seats, which are readily identifiable as one DSP, being

[[Page 58891]]

designated as having only a single seating position.
2. Countermeasures
    Today's final rule revises the countermeasures specified in the 
NPRM. Under today's final rule, adjacent seat surfaces are considered 
continuous, unless:

    (i) The seating surfaces are separated by:
    (A) A fixed trimmed surface whose top surface is unpadded and 
that has a width not less than 140 mm (5.5 inches), as measured in 
each transverse vertical plane within that measurement zone, or
    (B) A void whose cross section in each transverse vertical plane 
within that measurement zone is a rectangle that is not less than 
140 mm (5.5 inches) wide and not less than 140 mm (5.5 inches) deep. 
The top edge of the cross section in any such plane is congruent 
with the transverse horizontal line that intersects the lowest point 
on the portion of the top profile of the seating surfaces that lie 
within that plane.

or

    (ii) Interior trim interrupts the measurement of the nominal hip 
room of the seating surfaces, measured laterally along the ``X'' 
plane through the H-point. For purposes of this paragraph, the H-
point is located using the SAE three-dimensional H-point machine per 
SAE Recommended Practice J826, rev. July 1995, with the legs and leg 
weights removed,

or

    (iii) The seating surfaces are adjacent outboard seats, and the 
lateral distance between any point on the seat cushion of one seat 
and any point on the seat cushion of the other seat is not less than 
140 mm (5.5 inches).

    As we stated in the NPRM, we recognize that it is not practical to 
design a vehicle to prevent all potential misuse of interior positions 
that could be used for seating (70 FR 36096). However, the 
countermeasures incorporated in the new definition will provide visual 
cues to indicate the number of DSPs at a seat location and thus the 
number of people who should sit there. As discussed above, the agency 
received a number of complaints from consumers who said that, at time 
of purchase, the actual number of manufacturer designated seating 
positions at some bench seats was not readily apparent to them. Today's 
final rule is intended to eliminate complaints, result in seat designs 
that better convey the number of occupants that are intended to occupy 
a seat, and ensure that all occupants can be properly restrained.
    Today's final rule provides manufacturers with flexibility in 
designing seats. A manufacturer may install an impediment or void as 
described above in order to maintain the current number of DSPs. If a 
fixed trim surface is appropriately configured, a convenience function, 
such as a cup holder, tray or storage, also can serve as an impediment. 
A manufacturer is also given the option of preventing two adjacent 
seats being treated as a single continuous seating surface by designing 
the vehicle interior so that a transverse horizontal line through the 
H-points of the two seats intersects surfaces of the vehicle interior. 
The model year 2006 Ford Mustang and BMW 3 Series convertible are 
examples of vehicles that would qualify under this criterion.
    For purpose of the countermeasures, the H-point is located using 
the SAE three-dimensional H-point machine per SAE Recommended Practice 
J826, rev. July 1995, with the legs and leg weights removed. In 
response to the Alliance's comment that measurements with the legs 
removed have not been demonstrated to be repeatable, the agency notes 
that its decision not to include the legs for the 3-dimensional tool 
when determining the H-point was based on three factors. First, based 
on the regulatory text adopted in the final rule, the need to perform 
this measurement would occur primarily in the rear seats of sports 
cars. The room available for installing the 3-D mannequin is limited in 
these vehicles, resulting in greater difficulty and potentially greater 
measurement error if the legs were used. Second, the agency eliminated 
the measurement box around the H-point and hence the need to determine 
either a minimum or maximum hip width. Third, the Alliance did not 
provide any documentation supporting its claim.

D. Calculating the Number of Designated Seating Positions

1. Procedure for Determining Number of DSPs
    The agency is adopting a procedure for determining the number of 
seating positions at a location once it is determined that a location 
has at least one DSP. The procedure for determining the number of DSPs 
at a seat location adopted today applies to passenger cars; buses, 
except school buses; and trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
with a GVWR less than 10,000 lbs. It does not, however, apply to motor 
homes, police vehicles, school buses, ambulances, fire fighting 
vehicles, and trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 
10,000 lbs or greater.\5 \
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The DSP definition itself will be applicable to all vehicles 
including motor homes, police vehicles, school buses, ambulances, 
fire fighting vehicles, and trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency recognizes that the usage needs and patterns for seat 
locations in motor homes, police vehicles, ambulances, fire fighting 
vehicles, and trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 
10,000 lbs or greater are different than the usage needs and patterns 
for typical light duty vehicles. Further, the crash data did not 
demonstrate a problem of the number of occupants exceeding the number 
of DSPs in such vehicles.
    Therefore, in order to provide manufacturers the flexibility to 
design these vehicles for their more specialized functions, the 
calculation procedure will not be used to determine the number of DSPs 
in those vehicles. Since the final rule does not reduce the current 
requirements for those vehicles, the agency does not anticipate any 
departures from the current industry practices for designating seating 
positions in these vehicles. For these vehicles, except school buses, 
the rule expressly permits the manufacturer of these vehicles to 
continue to designate, using a label in compliance with S4.4 of FMVSS 
No. 207, locations that are not to be used for seating while the 
vehicle is in motion. The rule excludes those locations from the DSP 
definition. For school buses, the existing method for determining the 
number of passenger seating positions, set forth in S4.1 of FMVSS No. 
222, ``School bus passenger seating and crash protection,'' will 
continue to apply.
    With regard to the vehicles for which the procedure will apply, we 
are specifying the application of one of two calculations, dependent 
upon the overall value of the seating surface width. For adjacent seats 
with a continuous seating surface width less than 1400 mm (55 inches), 
the measured surface would be divided by 350 mm and rounded down to the 
nearest whole number to produce the number of DSPs. For adjacent seats 
with 1400 mm (55 inches) or more of continuous seating surface, the 
measured surface would be divided by 450 mm and rounded down to the 
nearest whole number. Also, a compliance test procedure is being 
published on the NHTSA Web site concurrently with this final rule.
    A survey of the MY 2006 vehicle fleet indicated that application of 
the 350 and 450 divisor values resulted in a DSP number consistent with 
the manufacturers' designation. As noted above, the large 2-DSP seats 
seen in earlier fleets are not nearly so prevalent in more recent 
fleets. Today's final rule encourages manufacturers to continue

[[Page 58892]]

this trend. Additionally, the larger divisor for larger seats prevents 
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 do 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.
    Public Citizen and Safety Research and Strategies questioned the 
use of a larger divisor for larger seats. Safety Research and 
Strategies suggested that the lack of a problem with larger seats may 
be the result of a limited data, and suggested that the agency consider 
usage patterns of these larger vehicles after second retail sale. Both 
of these commenters also suggested that use patterns may change in the 
future that would necessitate 3-DSPs being designated as 4-DSPs.
    The data relied upon by the agency did not indicate a problem of 
four occupants seated at 3-DSP locations. The vehicle population 
surveyed did not exclude used vehicles (i.e., vehicles after second 
retail sale). Commenters did not provide any data to indicate that the 
usage pattern in larger vehicles was changing in a manner as they 
discussed. Therefore, today's final rule maintains the two separate 
calculations based on seating surface width.
    The calculation procedures adopted today specify that the seat 
measurement is divided by the appropriate factor, and that the 
resulting value is rounded down to produce the number of DSPs. Again, 
as already noted, the procedure adopted today relies on seating surface 
width as opposed to hip room. Rounding down results in the 
determination of the number of DSPs that is consistent with the vehicle 
designs of the current fleet, which as discussed above, provide a 
better indication of the number of DSPs.
2. Motor Homes
    As stated above, the calculation procedure adopted today does not 
apply to motor homes, police vehicles, ambulances, fire fighting 
vehicles, and trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 
10,000 lbs or greater. This limitation was adopted largely in response 
to RVIA, which expressed concern that the agency's proposal was 
inconsistent with past agency policy regarding the number of DSPs 
required in motor homes and with the practice of the motor home 
industry.
    RVIA noted that in the preamble to a final rule dated April 19, 
1979, the agency stated:

    It is the agency's position that a manufacturer must provide 
designated seating positions for the number of persons it advertises 
its vehicle will accommodate. In the case of a motor home, this 
means that if such a vehicle is advertised to ``sleep six,'' the 
manufacturer must assume that the six persons will ride in the 
vehicle to their sleeping destination and thus must designate six 
seating positions.

(44 FR 23229, 23234). RVIA said further that the agency confirmed this 
position in an April 24, 1995 letter to Four Winds International 
Corporation, in which the agency stated:

    This will confirm that it continues to be NHTSA's position that, 
as a minimum, there must be as many designated seating positions as 
there are sleeping accommodations.

    RVIA appears to have misinterpreted these statements to mean that a 
motor home manufacturer is only required to designate a number of DSPs 
equal to the number of sleeping accommodations. However, this has not 
been the agency's historic interpretation.
    In the 1979 final rule, the agency was discussing a non-compliance 
investigation in which a manufacturer advertised a motor home as 
``sleeping six,'' but only designated four seating positions (44 FR at 
23234). In the preamble to that final rule, the agency also stated,

    Motor home manufacturers are currently required to designate as 
a seating position any location intended by the manufacturer to 
provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion.

(Id.) In the letter to Four Winds, the agency stressed that ``as a 
minimum,'' there must be as many designated seating positions as there 
are sleeping accommodations.
    At the same time, NHTSA notes that it does not regard its amendment 
of the definition of ``designated seating position'' as having any 
effect on the ability of manufacturers to use the option under FMVSS 
No. 207 of placing a label on a seating location stating that it is not 
to be used while the vehicle is in motion, instead of designating the 
location as a DSP and installing a seat belt. RVIA had expressed 
concern that the elimination of the language ``likely to be used as a 
seating position while the vehicle is in motion'' would have the effect 
of eliminating that option. In response to RVIA's concerns, and in 
order to make the agency's intention clearer, the final rule includes 
in the new DSP definition a specific cross-reference to the provision 
of FMVSS No. 207 that permits labeling of a location as one not to be 
occupied while the vehicle is in motion. The rule expressly provides 
that a seating location so labeled in the listed types of vehicles is 
not a DSP.

E. Auxiliary Seating and Seat Belt Anchorages

    Today's final rule eliminates the exclusion of auxiliary seats from 
the definition of ``designated seating position.'' Including these 
seats in the definition of ``designated seating position'' has the 
effect of subjecting these seats to the occupant crash protection 
requirements applicable to designated seating positions (e.g., seat 
belt requirements).
    When the agency originally adopted the DSP definition, safety belt 
use rates were well below 20 percent. The installation of seat belts 
for auxiliary seats, i.e., temporary and jump seats, was not then a 
high priority for the agency since the risk to occupants of those seats 
was a very small part of the problem. Now that safety belt use rates 
are much higher, the agency is focusing on occupants who remain 
unrestrained. This includes occupants of auxiliary seats, many of whom 
are children.
    Under today's final rule, seats formerly considered to be auxiliary 
seats are 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 seats, the 
direction that the seat faces is perpendicular to the longitudinal 
centerline of the 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 amending 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.
    RVIA stated that subjecting side facing seats to the requirements 
of FMVSS No. 210 would not be

[[Page 58893]]

practicable and that the load application for Type 1 (lap-only) and 
Type 2 (lap and shoulder) belts should be reduced. RVIA stated that 
side impacts occur with less frequency and that side impacts generally 
occur at lower speeds. However, RVIA did not provide any data to 
support its assertion. In addition to side impacts, we are also 
concerned about the safety of occupants in these seats when they are 
involved in rollover crashes or even frontal crashes where the forces 
experienced by the seat belt anchorages can be considerable. Therefore, 
we are maintaining the loading requirements under FMVSS No. 210.

IV. Benefits and Costs

    In the NPRM, we tentatively determined that there were three ways 
in which manufacturers could respond to the adoption of the proposed 
amendments to DSP: (1) Add a lap and shoulder belt; (2) create a space 
between the seats to restrict the number of seating positions; and (3) 
design an impediment to reduce the likelihood of people sitting in 
between the outboard seats. The purpose of today's final rule is not to 
require manufacturers to increase the number of DSPs in vehicles, but 
is instead to provide a simpler determination, both for manufacturers 
and for vehicle occupants, of what constitutes a DSP and of the number 
of DSPs at a given seating location. The costs and benefits estimated 
for the NPRM were based on the manufacturers' responding to the 
proposed DSP definition through one of the three identified options.
    An agency survey of the MY 2006 sport utility vehicle fleet 
revealed that manufacturers have substantially addressed the problems 
with wide 2-DSP seats by reducing the size of such seats. Reduced seat 
size provides a clearer indication to occupants of the number of DSPs 
at those locations. Because manufacturers are currently addressing the 
issues that were of concern in the NPRM, the costs and benefits of 
today's final rule are less than those estimated for the NPRM.
    The vehicles that will need a redesign in response to today's final 
rule are primarily sport coupes and convertibles with a 2-DSP second 
row, a limited number of multipurpose passenger vehicles with 2-DSP 
third row seats, and a truck that was identified as having an auxiliary 
seat. The total number of vehicles affected is approximately 
386,434.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Specifically, the affected vehicle population is comprised 
of 156,974 coupes and convertibles, 193,100 multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, 36,360 light trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost to comply with today's final rule ranges from $426,000 to 
$17,833,000. The lower end of this range is the cost if manufacturers 
were to install an impediment in affected passenger cars as specified 
in Sec.  571.10 and decrease seat surface width in affected light 
trucks. We expect that this will be the most likely response from 
manufacturers. The upper end of this range is the cost if manufacturers 
were to redesign in order to increase the number of DSPs, which would 
require the installation of a lap/shoulder belt for the additional 
position. Increasing the number of DSPs is a very unlikely response. 
The number of DSPs in a vehicle is closely tied to vehicle packaging 
and marketing. Increasing the number of DSPs would likely have 
implications beyond the cost of providing crash protection at the new 
DSP location.
    The main benefit of this final rule is the increased clarity and 
certainty provided by the revised definition and the newly established 
procedure for determining the number of DSPs at a seat location. 
Today's final rule reinforces vehicle consumer awareness as to the 
number of DSPs in a vehicle. Again, the intent of today's final rule is 
not to require manufacturers to increase the number of DSPs in their 
vehicles. However, if manufacturers were to increase the number of DSPs 
in the affected vehicle population, we estimate that one life would be 
saved. Further discussion on the costs and benefits of today's final 
rule are provided in the regulatory impact analysis, which is in the 
docket for this rulemaking.

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. In the 
NPRM, the agency proposed to 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 Sec.  571. This was not intended to update such references, but 
merely to centralize all of the incorporation by references contained 
in Sec.  571. However, due to delays in this rulemaking, we are 
delaying the creation of a complete centralized index. Instead, we are 
updating the existing information in Sec.  571.5 to include updated 
language in regard to incorporation of materials by reference, 
including new procedures for retrieving materials from the National 
Archives and Records Administration and a new format indicating the 
sections and paragraphs where incorporated materials are referenced. 
Additionally, we are including in that section all of the materials 
referenced in this rulemaking. Some portions of 571.3 and 571.210 were 
also amended to include references to the centralized incorporation by 
reference table. At a future date, we intend to complete the 
centralized incorporation by reference as envisioned in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking.

VI. Effective Date

    The definition of ``designated seating position'' adopted in this 
document clarifies the existing definition and is not expected to have 
a substantial impact on current vehicle design. The degree to which 
seat designs exhibit the characteristics that gave rise to the agency's 
concerns has lessened in the current fleet. The average width of a 2-
DSP seat in station wagons, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
(including sport utility vehicles) has decreased from 1,118 mm for MY 
2001 vehicles to 979 mm for MY 2006 vehicles. Manufacturers are either 
providing 3-DSPs or reducing the width of the seating area in order to 
more accurately reflect the intended occupancy.
    However, the inclusion of auxiliary seats and the established 
procedure for determining the number of DSPs will require minor 
redesign of a small population of vehicles. To provide manufacturers 
the opportunity to make such redesigns, the agency is providing a lead 
time of two years prior to the application of the revised definition 
and newly established procedure.

VII. 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

[[Page 58894]]

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 was determined to be significant under E.O. 12866 and 
was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. 
Further, 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. The impacts of this final 
rule are summarized above in the section entitled ``Benefits and 
costs.''

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 action on small entities. 
I hereby certify that this rule will not have a significant economic 
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)). This rule directly affects 
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 do 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 
number of DSPs through the design changes outlined in the definition. 
The definition does not require vehicles to have a certain number of 
designated seating positions, but provides an objective metric to 
define the number of DSPs for a given seat.
    Most of the seat manufacturers have 500 or fewer employees. But 
again, if design changes are required to maintain a seat's 2-DSP 
designation, this can be done by designing seats in accordance with the 
above listed specifications at a minimal cost per seat. Accordingly, 
there will be no significant economic impact on small businesses, small 
organizations, or small governmental units by these amendments. For 
these reasons, the agency has not prepared a regulatory flexibility 
analysis.

C. Executive Order No. 13132

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 
13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no 
additional consultation with States, local governments or their 
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency 
has concluded that the rule does not have federalism implications 
because the rule does not have ``substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect 
of today's rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at least two 
ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains 
an express preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard 
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of 
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to 
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed 
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory 
command that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking, so 
consultation would be unnecessary.
    We note that the definition and identification of a ``designated 
seating position'' is integral to several FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 
208 and FMVSS No. 110, ``Tire and rim selection.'' As such, a State 
definition of ``designated seating position'' would be subject to the 
express preemption clause in Sec.  30103(b). However, the agency is not 
aware of any State definition for that term, as it applies to the 
performance of vehicles regulated under the FMVSSs.
    In addition to the express preemption noted above, the Supreme 
Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on motor 
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, 
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA 
safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy 
Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements 
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 
(2000).
    NHTSA discussed the issue of preemption and sought comment from all 
stakeholders through publication of the proposed rule in the Federal 
Register. No State or local governmental entities submitted any 
comments to the docket for the proposed rule.
    Additionally, officials at NHTSA contacted organizations 
representing the interests of State and local governments and officials 
about this rulemaking and the issue of preemption. The National 
Conference of State Legislatures responded, indicating that it did not 
have any comments.
    Public Citizen argued in its comment that the agency lacks the 
authority to preempt State tort law actions. This final rule does not 
foreclose all such actions. It does identify circumstances in which the 
agency believes State tort actions would conflict with the agency's 
definition of ``designated seating position'' and hinder or frustrate 
the accomplishment of the purposes of the FMVSSs, so that specific 
claims would be preempted. Public Citizen also suggested that there is 
no reason to believe that there would be a conflict. We differ because 
NHTSA believes that comfort and convenience significantly affect the 
rate of seat belt use and in that belief have in the past adopted 
requirements to increase comfort and convenience. One of the oldest 
such requirements is the requirement for integral lap and shoulder 
belts. It was adopted in part to reduce the tangle of belts then 
confronting vehicle occupants.
    Our views regarding the preemptive effect of the amended definition 
remain largely as we stated them in the proposal. As noted above, the 
definition of ``designated seating position'' in section 571.3 
identifies circumstances, i.e., conflicting determinations in State 
tort law as to whether a location in a motor vehicle is or ought to be 
a designated seating position, that would prevent, hinder or frustrate 
the accomplishment of the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards in Part 571 of this title. A tort law judgment premised on 
there being more designated seating positions in a motor vehicle than 
the number contemplated in that definition could have a negative safety 
impact. Such a judgment would tend to induce manufacturers to equip a 
seating location with an excessive number of safety belts since the 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards require that each designated 
seating position be equipped with one or more safety belts. Given that 
seat belt comfort and convenience continue to be important

[[Page 58895]]

factors affecting the level of safety belt use, as evidenced by the 
agency's adoption of requirements to improve comfort and convenience 
and by its 2003 report on improving seat belt use,\7\ NHTSA believes 
the installation of an excessive number of safety belts would decrease, 
not increase, safety. We expect that occupants would be less likely to 
use safety belts because limited space would make such use difficult or 
uncomfortable. For example, four safety belts could be installed on a 
seat that NHTSA believes is appropriate for three occupants. Where the 
seat is actually occupied by three occupants, in order to use the 
safety belts in the location where they are installed, some of the 
occupants may sit uncomfortably close to another occupant and/or the 
side of the vehicle. If the occupants attempt to sit in locations where 
there is more space between them, the belts will not be properly 
aligned with the occupants' bodies, and they might end up sitting on 
buckles. This could have the effect of making it less likely that an 
occupant will use his or her respective belt because the belt would be 
located in an uncomfortable and/or inconvenient location. 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 high safety belt use rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NHTSA (2003), Initiatives to Address Safety Belt Use. 
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 
https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/SafetyBelt/OPIPT_FinalRpt_
07-17-03.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that there is no ambiguity or doubt about this, the 
agency has included such a provision in the text of this final rule, so 
that its position regarding preemptive effect is clear.
    While NHTSA has outlined some potential State requirements that may 
be preempted, it is conceivable that additional such conflicts may 
become clear through subsequent experience with today's regulation. 
NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if warranted. See id. 
at 883-86.

D. Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every 
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies 
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting 
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the 
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive 
effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there 
is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for 
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they 
may file suit or petition for review of this regulation in court.

E. National Environmental Policy Act

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

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

G. 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.''
    Unlike the proposed definition of ``designated seating position,'' 
today's final rule is not based on voluntary consensus standards. As 
noted above, the final rule avoids the unintended consequences of the 
proposal, i.e., increasing the calculated vehicle seating capacity. In 
developing the final rule, the agency reviewed various voluntary 
consensus standards for determining seating positions. The measurement 
procedure adopted today incorporates SAE J826 ``Devices for use in 
Defining and Measuring Vehicle Seating Accommodations,'' revised July 
1995.

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 will 
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 rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 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 final rule amends the 
definition of ``designated seating position.''

J. 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.

K. 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://docketsinfo.dot.gov/.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571

    Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

[[Page 58896]]


0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


0
2. Section 571.3 is amended by revising the definitions of ``designated 
seating position,'' ``5th percentile adult female,'' ``H-point,'' 
``Seating reference point,'' ``Torso line,'' and ``95th percentile 
adult male'' in paragraph (b) and adding a new paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  571.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Designated seating position means:
    (1) For vehicles manufactured prior to September 1, 2010, 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, except for 
auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump 
seats. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or 
multipurpose passenger vehicle with a G