Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection, 53386-53390 [2013-21128]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
53386
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
casual park use by persons that is not
reasonably likely to attract a crowd or
onlookers.
*
*
*
*
*
Special event means a sports event,
pageant, celebration, historical
reenactment, entertainment, exhibition,
parade, fair, festival, or similar activity
that is not a demonstration, engaged in
by one or more persons, the conduct of
which is reasonably likely to attract a
crowd or onlookers. This term does not
include casual park use by persons that
is not reasonably likely to attract a
crowd or onlookers.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: August 6, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013–21060 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–EJ–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2013–0482; FRL 9900–40Region 7]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri; St. Louis Area
Transportation Conformity
Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the state of
Missouri on March 17, 2011. This
revision proposes to amend the rule to
provide more specificity to the
interagency consultation process
requirements and responsibilities. The
revision to Missouri’s rule does not add
any additional requirements to the
existing rule but merely adds language
that better clarifies specific roles and
responsibilities including the
consultation groups’ processes. Further,
these revisions do not have an adverse
affect on air quality. EPA’s approval of
this SIP revision is being done in
accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Comments on this proposed
action must be received in writing by
September 30, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2013–0482, by mail to: Steven
Brown, Environmental Protection
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may
also be submitted electronically or
through hand delivery/courier by
following the detailed instructions in
the ADDRESSES section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this
Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Brown at (913) 551–7718, or by
email at brown.steven@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state’s
SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
revision amendment and anticipates no
relevant adverse comments to this
action. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments
are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated in
relation to this action. If EPA receives
relevant adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed action. EPA will
not institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so
at this time. Please note that if EPA
receives adverse comment on part of
this rule and if that part can be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may
adopt as final those parts of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment. For additional information,
see the direct final rule which is located
in the rules section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: August 1, 2013.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2013–20915 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0095]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
This document denies a
rulemaking petition submitted by BMW
Group, BMW of North America, LLC, to
amend the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard on occupant crash protection
to permit optional certification using a
seat belt interlock for front seat
occupants as an alternative to the
unbelted crash test requirements. The
agency is denying the petition because
the supporting material provided by the
petitioner is not sufficient for the agency
to fully evaluate the safety need,
benefits, effectiveness, and acceptability
of seat belt interlock systems.
Furthermore, in 2012, the agency
initiated the development of a research
program on seat belt interlocks in light
of its newly-acquired statutory authority
to allow consideration of seat belt
interlocks as a compliance option. The
agency believes that making a
determination to amend its performance
standards prior to the completion of its
research is premature.
SUMMARY:
For
Non-Legal Issues: Ms. Carla Rush, Office
of Crashworthiness Standards, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:
(202) 366–4583, Facsimile: (202) 493–
2739.
For Legal Issues: Mr. William Shakely,
Office of Chief Counsel, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:
(202) 366–2992, Facsimile: (202) 366–
3820.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
NHTSA’s mission is to save lives,
prevent injuries, and reduce economic
losses resulting from motor vehicle
crashes. Increasing seat belt use is one
of the agency’s highest priorities for
carrying out this mission. For each
percentage point gain in national seat
belt usage, we estimate that 200 lives are
saved each year. In 2012, the
nationwide seat belt use reached a high
of 86 percent for drivers and front seat
passengers. To achieve this rate, we
have relied on an array of agency
initiatives, such as regulating and
promoting the use of in-vehicle
technologies, the Click It or Ticket
program 1 and State primary
enforcement laws, to encourage seat belt
usage. Notwithstanding impressive
gains in seat belt usage, data from the
2011 Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS) indicates that 52 percent of all
1 https://www.nhtsa.gov/ciot.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
passenger vehicle crash fatalities were
unbelted occupants.
A. History and Research of Seat Belt
Interlock Systems
From a historical perspective, the
agency’s goal of increasing seat belt
usage extends back nearly to the
agency’s inception. In 1972, as an
interim measure to increase seat belt use
until acceptable automatic systems
became available, the agency added a
compliance option for passenger
vehicles manufactured between August
15, 1973 and August 14, 1975, that
allowed the use of an interlock system
that prevented the engine from starting
if any front-seat occupant was not
buckled up (37 FR 3911). However, as
a result of consumer non-acceptance of
these interlock systems, Congress
adopted a new provision, as part of the
Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety
Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–492,
88 Stat. 1470 (Oct. 27, 1974)). It
prohibited NHTSA from requiring, or
permitting as a compliance option 2 a
safety belt interlock designed to prevent
starting or operating a motor vehicle if
an occupant is not using a seat belt or
a buzzer designed to indicate a seat belt
is not in use, except a buzzer that
operates only during the 8-second
period after the ignition is turned to the
‘‘start’’ or ‘‘on’’ position (49 U.S.C.
30124).
In 1975, NHTSA funded a research
study on seat belt interlock systems in
production vehicles.3 The study
intended to measure the effectiveness of
the interlock system in increasing seat
belt usage. Three separate analyses were
conducted. Two involved seat belt use
observations among rental car customers
from U.S. airports and interviews of a
subsample of non-users. The third was
a field study of observed seat belt use
and a follow-up telephone interview
among private car owners in the general
population.
The field study found that occupants
of model year (MY) 1973 vehicles
showed a 3–6 percent seat belt use rate,
while those of MY 1974 vehicles
showed a significantly higher seat belt
use rate of 41–64 percent.4 However, the
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2 We
note that the statutory prohibition restricting
the use of interlocks as an option for compliance
with NHTSA standards in no way limited the
manufacturer’s freedom to place interlocks in
vehicles. See NHTSA’s 2004 interpretation letter to
Mr. Bruce H. Carraway, Jr., Carraway Safety Belt
Company at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/
a00473beltminder_cmc.html.
3 A. Westefeld and B. M. Phillips. Safety Belt
Interlock System: Usage Survey. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, May 1975. DOT HS 801 594.
4 Most MY 1974 vehicles were equipped with seat
belt interlock systems.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
study also found a decline in the seat
belt use rate among occupants of the MY
1974 vehicles as the year went on (e.g.,
in February seat belt usage was 64
percent among drivers and front right
passengers and by November it dropped
to 41 percent). This decline in seat belt
use within the observed year was
attributed to mechanical issues with the
system as well as drivers learning how
to defeat or circumvent the system.
Telephone interviews of the vehicle
owners found that 59 percent
considered the seat belt interlocks to be
‘‘unfavorable.’’ The proportion of
vehicle owners that were categorized as
non-users that considered the interlock
systems ‘‘unfavorable’’ was 87 percent.
Furthermore, only 54 percent of the
vehicle owners interviewed reported
that they had not defeated or
circumvented the interlock system.
In 2001, NHTSA funded a study
(through a contract with the
Transportation Research Board of the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)) of
the potential benefits of technologies
designed to increase seat belt use.5 This
study aimed to determine how drivers
(at that time) might accept technologies
designed to increase seat belt use. As
part of this study, NHTSA conducted indepth interviews and focus groups to
obtain a greater understanding of the
perceived effectiveness and
acceptability of four technologies: two
seat belt reminder systems and two
interlock systems (entertainment and
transmission).6 The NAS committee
reviewed the available literature, held
stakeholder meetings with key
automobile manufacturers and
suppliers, and reviewed the results of
the in-depth interviews and focus
groups conducted by NHTSA for this
study.7
Among the NAS study findings,
transmission interlock systems were
perceived to be highly effective based
upon the interviews and focus groups
conducted. More than 85 percent of
respondents rated them effective.
However, only 43 percent rated them
acceptable with the hard-core nonusers 8 making up the highest
5 ‘‘Buckling Up, Technologies to Increase Seat
Belt Use,’’ Special Report 278, Committee for the
Safety Belt Technology Study, https://www.TRB.org,
2003.
6 An entertainment interlock prevents playing the
radio or stereo unless seat belts are buckled. A
transmission interlock prevents putting the vehicle
in gear unless seat belts are buckled.
7 Bentley, J.J., Kurrus, R., & Beuse, N. ‘‘Qualitative
research regarding attitudes towards four
technologies aimed at increasing safety belt use.’’
(Report 2003–01) Bethesda, MD: Equals Three
Communications. DOT HS 043 581.
8 Hard-core non-users are those who report never
or rarely using seat belts.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53387
percentage (71 percent) of respondents
who rated the transmission interlock not
acceptable. The recommendations from
the study suggested that NHTSA and the
private sector encourage the research
and development of seat belt interlock
systems for certain high-risk groups
(e.g., drivers impaired by alcohol,
teenage drivers) who are
overrepresented in crashes. It also
suggested that interlocks could be
installed on company fleets. Other
recommendations issued by the NAS
report involved seat belt reminders and
other strategies.
In 2009, NHTSA published a report
on a field study that evaluated a device
that prevented drivers from shifting
vehicles into gear for up to 8 seconds
unless the seat belt was buckled.9 This
study showed that a gearshift delay
resulted in a significant 20 percentagepoint increase among two samples of
commercial fleet drivers. This study
also noted that future research could
investigate a complete transmission seat
belt interlock now that seat belt use is
much higher than in the 1970s and that
transmission interlocks may receive
higher acceptance than ignition
interlocks.
Given the history of interlocks, and
the statutory prohibition against
requiring or allowing seat belt interlocks
as a compliance option, manufacturers
have primarily focused their efforts on
developing and introducing
technologies that encourage seat belt
use, but that are acceptable to
customers, such as seat belt reminder
systems. Such systems can be effective
without being overly annoying.
In 2012, President Obama signed into
law Public Law 112–141, the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP–21). MAP–21, a
transportation reauthorization bill,
removed the restriction from permitting
the use of seat belt interlocks as a
compliance option. However, the
prohibition on requiring a seat belt
interlock still remains.
In 2013, the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) published its
findings from a national telephone
survey it conducted on the attitudes
toward seat belt use and in-vehicle
technologies for encouraging seat belt
use. The respondents were asked about
their support of different types of seat
belt interlocks: a speed interlock, a
transmission interlock, an entertainment
system interlock, and an ignition
interlock. The survey found that only
about half of the full-time seat belt users
9 Pilot Tests of a Seat Belt Gearshift Delay on the
Belt Use of Commercial Fleet (DOT HS 811 230)—
Dec. 2009.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
53388
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
supported the use of seat belt interlocks
to encourage seat belt use and even
fewer part-time seat belt users and nonusers supported their use.10
B. Unbelted Test Requirements
Initially, the injury criteria limits in
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 208 had to be met for air
bag equipped vehicles in frontal rigid
barrier crash tests at speeds up to 48
km/h (30 mph), with the 50th percentile
adult male dummies wearing seat belts,
and in separate barrier crashes at those
speeds with dummies being protected
by automatic (passive) means (35 FR
16927). However, due in part to
litigation, the passive protection
requirements did not begin until the MY
1987 for passenger cars and MY 1995 for
light trucks and vans. The barrier test
was performed with the dummies
unbelted if the means of passive
protection was an air bag.11 In 1997, the
agency amended FMVSS No. 208 to
provide a temporary option for
manufacturers to certify their vehicles to
an unbelted sled test as an alternative to
the unbelted barrier test requirement (62
FR 12960). NHTSA established the sled
test option to address the air bag
fatalities that were occurring at the time,
and to ensure that the vehicle
manufacturers could quickly depower
all air bags so that they inflate less
aggressively. As part of the May 2000
final rule that required advanced air
bags, the sled test option was removed
and vehicle manufacturers were
required to meet a rigid barrier crash
test with both unbelted 5th percentile
adult female dummies and 50th
percentile adult male dummies in a 20
mph to 25 mph rigid barrier crash test
(65 FR 30680).
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Petition
On October 23, 2012, BMW Group,
BMW of North America, LLC, (herein
referred to as the petitioner) submitted
a petition to NHTSA to amend FMVSS
No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’
to permit a certification option using a
seat belt interlock for front seat
occupants as an alternative to the
existing unbelted crash test.12
10 D.G. Kidd, et al. ‘‘Attitudes toward seat belt use
and in-vehicle technologies for encouraging belt
use.’’ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,
January 2013. https://www.iihs.org/research/topics/
pdf/r1183.pdf.
11 On September 2, 1993, NHTSA amended
FMVSS No. 208 to require the installation of air
bags as the means of providing automatic crash
protection (58 FR 46551). The full compliance date
for the amended requirements was September 1,
1997, for passenger cars and September 1, 1998, for
light trucks and vans.
12 The petitioner noted that it had initiated the
action with the Congress to amend the Motor
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
The petitioner cited several arguments
in support of their request, including
the potential benefits associated with
the increased use of seat belts as well as
the opportunity to design optimized
systems for belted occupants. The
petitioner estimated that hundreds of
lives could be saved if FMVSS No. 208
was modified as requested and it
suggested that the number of lives that
could be saved by increasing seat belt
use would be significant compared to
other agency rulemakings (e.g., roof
crush, ejection mitigation, tire pressure
monitoring systems, etc.). With regard to
optimizing for belted occupants, the
petitioner noted that it was gathering
additional simulation/user acceptability
data to share with the agency, as
confidential business information.
However, the agency has not received
that data to date.
By allowing vehicles to be optimized
for belted occupants, the petitioner
claimed that vehicles will be lighter and
more spacious, as well as more fuel
efficient with lower emissions. The
petitioner estimated that a 7 pound
vehicle weight reduction (by removing
knee bolsters) would result in carbon
dioxide (CO2) savings between 274–406
metric tons per year and 30,850–45,744
gallons of fuel saved per year.
The petitioner stated that by making
interlocks a compliance option, there
would not be any cost burden associated
with this amendment and it would
result in savings of Federal and State
funds (e.g., expenses for emergency
medical services (EMS), hospital stays,
insurance, traffic, etc.). It also claimed
that Federal funding for seat belt
initiatives could be used to fund other
programs since seat belt interlocks have
the potential of increasing belt usage at
no extra cost to the government.
The petitioner identified three
potential types of interlock systems: An
ignition interlock, a transmission
interlock, and a speed-limiting
interlock. The petitioner noted that an
ignition interlock would likely have low
customer acceptance, based on past
reactions, and have other disadvantages
(e.g., does not allow remote starting,
encourages defeat mechanisms, etc.).
The petitioner stated that a transmission
interlock has the benefits of an ignition
interlock, but allows the driver to warm
up the vehicle or simply sit in the
vehicle with the heat or air conditioning
running. The petitioner believed that a
speed-limiting interlock, that allows the
vehicle to drive at low speeds (ideal for
short distance tasks, such as driving to
Vehicle Safety Act to give the agency the authority
to allow a seat belt interlock as a compliance
option.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a mail box, towing situations, etc.),
would be the least annoying and most
accepted type of interlock.
The petitioner further expressed its
preference for a speed-limiting interlock
system that focuses on front occupants
only. It stated that monitoring rear seat
belt usage would be problematic
because occupant detection in the rear
would prevent consumers from carrying
cargo on the rear seats, which would
likely result in consumer backlash.13
III. Analysis of Petition
The agency is denying the petitioner’s
request to allow a seat belt interlock
compliance option as an alternative to
unbelted crash test requirements of
FMVSS No. 208. Removing the
protection offered to unbelted occupants
would be unprecedented for NHTSA
considering unbelted crash test
requirements date back to the 1970s (35
FR 16927).14 To do so without a
sufficient scientific basis could lead to
unintended consequences and
potentially negative outcomes. Given
the complex issues surrounding seat
belt interlocks, the agency believes that
it would be desirable to have additional
information beyond that provided by
the petitioner before deciding whether
to pursue the requested rulemaking
action. The agency would like to
evaluate the safety case for rulemaking
on this issue objectively and with a
reasonable degree of certainty. However,
the agency does not have sufficient
information, at this time, to perform
such an evaluation.
Although there may be potential
benefits of a seat belt interlock system
as a means of increasing seat belt use,
as suggested by the petitioner, the
agency does not believe this is sufficient
justification, without additional
information, for the requested
rulemaking. There are many other
important considerations that we would
like addressed before deciding whether
to pursue rulemaking. Among such
considerations would be user
acceptability and potential disbenefits.
The following discussion provides
further analysis of the justification
provided by the petitioner as well as
other key factors that the agency would
want to consider before deciding
whether to pursue rulemaking.
13 Occupant detection systems that rely on weight
sensors would have problems distinguishing
occupants from cargo, which could be a source of
annoyance for drivers if cargo is triggering the
interlock system and not an unbuckled occupant.
14 Due to many years of litigation, the passive
protection requirements did not begin until MY
1987 for passenger cars and MY 1995 for light
trucks and vans.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
The petitioner’s main arguments for
permitting the use of seat belt interlock
systems as a compliance option are that
it would increase seat belt use rates
among front seat occupants and allow
manufacturers to optimize their vehicle
interior and safety restraint designs for
belted occupants. It also mentioned the
added benefit of allowing manufacturers
the design freedom to create innovative
lightweight vehicle concepts.
The agency agrees with the theoretical
premise that a seat belt interlock system
could have the potential to increase seat
belt use rates. This is consistent with
our past research. However, the degree
to which seat belt use will increase is
not clear and is likely dependent on
multiple factors. Since interlocks have
not been present in the vehicle fleet
since the 1970s, it is difficult to make
an accurate assessment of their
effectiveness and acceptance at this
time. We cannot assume the effects will
be the same as they were in the past.
Given today’s 86 percent seat belt use
rate, if interlocks were re-introduced
into the vehicle fleet, we would not
experience an eight-fold increase in seat
belt use that the 1975 study on the
interlock systems reported.
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to
address the acceptance of interlock
systems, given their historical
background. The IIHS’s recent survey
suggested that the acceptance among
part-time and non-users of these
systems has not improved over the
years. This lack of acceptance among
the types of occupants that an interlock
is intended to target leads to the
reasonable assumption that such
occupants may attempt to disable the
interlocks. This is supported by the
research findings and the real world
historical evidence of consumer
backlash in the 1970s, which resulted in
motorists finding ways to disconnect or
circumvent their interlock system. The
petitioner does not address how such a
system would be hardened to prevent it
from being disabled or circumvented,
nor the expected actual effectiveness of
the systems based on the level of
hardening.
Before deciding whether to pursue
rulemaking, NHTSA would want such
information in order to evaluate the
technologies available to limit the
possibility that seat belt interlock
systems could be circumvented or
disabled and to evaluate potential test
procedures to determine that a vehicle
certified by this option could not be
circumvented or disabled and the costs
and expected effectiveness of added
technologies to ensure that. The
petitioner did not provide specifics of
how any of the three types of systems
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
it described would be hardened to
prevent circumvention or any means by
which the agency could ensure the
system could not be defeated.
Another concern with an interlock
system that is not universally effective
(i.e., results in some remainder of
occupants unbelted) is the potential risk
of harm to those unbelted occupants. By
allowing manufacturers to opt out of
complying with the unbelted frontal
crash test requirements, it potentially
puts unbelted occupants at an increased
risk of harm. Before deciding whether to
pursue rulemaking, the agency would
want to determine and quantify the
potential disbenefit to those remaining
unbelted occupants in comparison to
the protection they are now offered. The
petition lacked an analysis of this issue.
The petitioner instead opined that the
current unbelted test requirements may
result in a reduction of protection to
belted front seat occupants. It claimed
that belted occupant protection can be
optimized if the unbelted tests were
removed; however, no data were
submitted to substantiate this claim.
The agency is further unaware of any
increased risk of injury to belted front
occupants as a result of vehicle
optimization being done to meet both
the unbelted and belted crash protection
requirements. Without detailed
information on the design changes the
petitioner envisions that vehicle
manufacturers will make in order to
offer better protection to belted front
occupants in the absence of an unbelted
test requirement and the associated
quantified benefits, the agency is unable
to assess the validity of the petitioner’s
claim.
The petitioner also suggested that by
permitting the use of a seat belt
interlock system as a compliance
option, manufacturers could optimize
their vehicles to be ‘‘lighter, more
spacious and fuel efficient.’’ The
petitioner stated that manufacturers are
known to modify the vehicle interior
designs and oversize the restraint
systems in order to meet the unbelted
frontal occupant crash protection
criteria. It estimated that by granting its
petition, a 7 pound vehicle weight
reduction (by removing knee bolsters)
would result in CO2 and fuel savings.
We presume that by suggesting the
removal of a restraint system
component, such as the knee bolster, the
implication is that if there were no
unbelted test, the knee bolster could be
removed. However, it is unclear to the
agency how removal of the knee bolster
helps optimize the protection offered to
belted occupants, as the petitioner
suggested. It is also important to
understand the extent of the safety
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53389
reduction, if removal of components
like knee bolsters degrades the
protection of those occupants that might
remain unbelted.
The agency acknowledges that
equipment added to vehicles to comply
with safety standards may increase
vehicle weight, and therefore have a
secondary, but generally very small,
effect on vehicle fuel economy, and, in
some cases, decreased passenger
compartment space. However, when
considering a petition to exempt a
manufacturer from complying with an
occupant safety standard, the agency’s
first consideration would be the effects
of the proposed exemption on occupant
safety. Furthermore, the petitioner’s
requested amendments will not
necessarily lead to fuel economy gains
that could be attributed to this
rulemaking action since there is no
accompanying requirement on the part
of the vehicle manufacturer to achieve
these fuel economy benefits.
The petitioner stated that by making
interlocks a compliance option there
would be no resulting cost burden. It
also claimed there would be savings to
society associated with reduction in
expenses for such things as EMS,
hospitals, insurance, and traffic. It also
claimed that Federal funding for seat
belt initiatives could be used elsewhere.
The agency has not traditionally
estimated the cost burden to industry
for compliance options because the
agency’s focus is on whether the various
options will result in similar benefits.
To the extent cost burden would be
considered, it is only one of many
factors the agency must consider in
allowing an option. As we expressed
above, the petition is lacking other
important information that the agency
would want in order to determine the
merits of the petitioner’s request.
As to the petitioner’s claims of
societal cost savings, we note that the
costs related to emergency medical
services, hospital stays and insurance
would all be captured in our assessment
of injury reduction related to any
increase in seat belt use. As to any cost
saving related to traffic reduction, we do
not expect that an interlock would
prevent a crash from occurring, thus the
assumption of a cost saving related to
this factor is speculative. Finally, as to
the claimed potential savings related to
funding of seat belt use initiatives, we
note the following observations. First,
even if a seat belt interlock compliance
option were allowed, it would only
affect new vehicles and there would be
many legacy vehicles in the fleet
without interlocks. Second, since it
would be a compliance option, the
extent to which this option will be
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
53390
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
selected is unknown, again potentially
leaving vehicles in the fleet without
interlocks. Thus, we predict that seat
belt use initiatives would need to
remain in place for the foreseeable
future.
Finally, we wish to make clear that
the denial of this petition does not
restrict the petitioner, or any other
manufacturer, from voluntarily
providing a seat belt interlock system in
their vehicles.15 In fact, such a
voluntary implementation would likely
yield important real world data about
interlock systems that could be utilized
by the agency in the future.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. NHTSA Planned Seat Belt Interlock
Systems Research
The agency is in the process of
developing a research program on seat
belt interlock systems in an effort to
understand the potential for improving
occupant safety in light of the agency’s
newly acquired statutory authority to
permit interlocks as a compliance
option. The human factors research
program will gather data to help
determine the effectiveness and
acceptance of seat belt interlock systems
as well as discuss potential minimum
performance specifications for seat belt
interlock systems and their advantages/
disadvantages (including those needed
to prevent defeating the system).16 The
agency anticipates participation by
organizations leading the development
of seat belt interlock system prototypes
(i.e., vehicle manufacturers and
suppliers) in these research efforts. To
assess the potential impacts on unbelted
occupants, the agency initially plans on
using occupant restraint simulation
models to understand the safety
implications for optimizing occupant
compartments and restraint systems
considering today’s regulatory
requirements versus those that apply to
belted occupants only. We plan to
complete these research studies in 2015.
V. Conclusion
After carefully considering all aspects
of the petition, the agency has decided
to deny the petitioner’s request to allow
a seat belt interlock compliance option
as an alternative to the unbelted crash
test requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
Given the complex issues surrounding
seat belt interlocks, the agency believes
that it would be desirable to have
additional information, beyond the
15 However, such a system cannot be considered
when assessing compliance with the FMVSS and
thus all protection currently required by FMVSS
No. 208 to belted and unbelted occupants would
remain in force.
16 This research is contingent upon the
availability of seat belt interlock system prototypes.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
supporting material provided by the
petitioner, before deciding whether to
pursue the requested rulemaking action.
The agency lacks field data or sufficient
research findings that would allow for
the determination of the optimal type of
seat belt interlock system as it relates to
acceptance and the attributes necessary
to harden against circumvention. Nor do
we have information to assess the
potential level of safety for belted and
unbelted occupants that would result
from such a rulemaking.
The agency’s effort to study seat belt
interlock systems is in its initial stages.
Making a determination to include seat
belt interlocks as an alternative
compliance option to the unbelted test
requirements of FMVSS No. 208 prior to
completion of our research is premature.
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 1.95.
Issued in Washington, DC, on: August 19,
2013 under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013–21128 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0042;
4500030114]
RIN 1018–AX13
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Jaguar
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the
public comment period.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period
on our August 20, 2012, proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
jaguar (Panthera onca), as revised on
July 1, 2013, under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. This
notice announces reopening of the
comment period to allow all interested
parties an additional opportunity to
comment and submit information on the
revised proposed rule, the draft
economic analysis, and the draft
environmental assessment. We will
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
consider all comments and information
provided by the public during this
comment period in preparation of a
final designation of critical habitat.
Accordingly, the final designation may
differ from our proposal. If you
submitted comments previously, you do
not need to resubmit them because we
have already incorporated them into the
public record and will fully consider
them in preparation of the final rule.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published August 20,
2012 (77 FR 50214), and revised July 1,
2013 (78 FR 39237) is reopened. We will
consider comments received or
postmarked on or before September 13,
2013. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES)
must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You
may obtain copies of the proposed rule,
the revisions of July 1, 2013, the draft
economic analysis, and the draft
environmental assessment on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0042 or
by mail from the Arizona Ecological
Services Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Written comments: You may submit
written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
by searching for FWS–R2–ES–2012–
0042, which is the docket number for
this rulemaking.
(2) By hard copy: Submit comments
by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–
ES–2012–0042; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona
Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Drive,
Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; by
telephone (602–242–0210); or by
facsimile (602–242–2513). Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53386-53390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21128]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0095]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a rulemaking petition submitted by BMW
Group, BMW of North America, LLC, to amend the Federal motor vehicle
safety standard on occupant crash protection to permit optional
certification using a seat belt interlock for front seat occupants as
an alternative to the unbelted crash test requirements. The agency is
denying the petition because the supporting material provided by the
petitioner is not sufficient for the agency to fully evaluate the
safety need, benefits, effectiveness, and acceptability of seat belt
interlock systems. Furthermore, in 2012, the agency initiated the
development of a research program on seat belt interlocks in light of
its newly-acquired statutory authority to allow consideration of seat
belt interlocks as a compliance option. The agency believes that making
a determination to amend its performance standards prior to the
completion of its research is premature.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Non-Legal Issues: Ms. Carla Rush,
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
Telephone: (202) 366-4583, Facsimile: (202) 493-2739.
For Legal Issues: Mr. William Shakely, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2992, Facsimile: (202)
366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce
economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. Increasing seat
belt use is one of the agency's highest priorities for carrying out
this mission. For each percentage point gain in national seat belt
usage, we estimate that 200 lives are saved each year. In 2012, the
nationwide seat belt use reached a high of 86 percent for drivers and
front seat passengers. To achieve this rate, we have relied on an array
of agency initiatives, such as regulating and promoting the use of in-
vehicle technologies, the Click It or Ticket program \1\ and State
primary enforcement laws, to encourage seat belt usage. Notwithstanding
impressive gains in seat belt usage, data from the 2011 Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) indicates that 52 percent of all
[[Page 53387]]
passenger vehicle crash fatalities were unbelted occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/ciot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. History and Research of Seat Belt Interlock Systems
From a historical perspective, the agency's goal of increasing seat
belt usage extends back nearly to the agency's inception. In 1972, as
an interim measure to increase seat belt use until acceptable automatic
systems became available, the agency added a compliance option for
passenger vehicles manufactured between August 15, 1973 and August 14,
1975, that allowed the use of an interlock system that prevented the
engine from starting if any front-seat occupant was not buckled up (37
FR 3911). However, as a result of consumer non-acceptance of these
interlock systems, Congress adopted a new provision, as part of the
Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492,
88 Stat. 1470 (Oct. 27, 1974)). It prohibited NHTSA from requiring, or
permitting as a compliance option \2\ a safety belt interlock designed
to prevent starting or operating a motor vehicle if an occupant is not
using a seat belt or a buzzer designed to indicate a seat belt is not
in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period
after the ignition is turned to the ``start'' or ``on'' position (49
U.S.C. 30124).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We note that the statutory prohibition restricting the use
of interlocks as an option for compliance with NHTSA standards in no
way limited the manufacturer's freedom to place interlocks in
vehicles. See NHTSA's 2004 interpretation letter to Mr. Bruce H.
Carraway, Jr., Carraway Safety Belt Company at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/a00473beltminder_cmc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1975, NHTSA funded a research study on seat belt interlock
systems in production vehicles.\3\ The study intended to measure the
effectiveness of the interlock system in increasing seat belt usage.
Three separate analyses were conducted. Two involved seat belt use
observations among rental car customers from U.S. airports and
interviews of a subsample of non-users. The third was a field study of
observed seat belt use and a follow-up telephone interview among
private car owners in the general population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A. Westefeld and B. M. Phillips. Safety Belt Interlock
System: Usage Survey. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, May 1975. DOT HS
801 594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The field study found that occupants of model year (MY) 1973
vehicles showed a 3-6 percent seat belt use rate, while those of MY
1974 vehicles showed a significantly higher seat belt use rate of 41-64
percent.\4\ However, the study also found a decline in the seat belt
use rate among occupants of the MY 1974 vehicles as the year went on
(e.g., in February seat belt usage was 64 percent among drivers and
front right passengers and by November it dropped to 41 percent). This
decline in seat belt use within the observed year was attributed to
mechanical issues with the system as well as drivers learning how to
defeat or circumvent the system. Telephone interviews of the vehicle
owners found that 59 percent considered the seat belt interlocks to be
``unfavorable.'' The proportion of vehicle owners that were categorized
as non-users that considered the interlock systems ``unfavorable'' was
87 percent. Furthermore, only 54 percent of the vehicle owners
interviewed reported that they had not defeated or circumvented the
interlock system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Most MY 1974 vehicles were equipped with seat belt interlock
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, NHTSA funded a study (through a contract with the
Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS)) of the potential benefits of technologies designed to increase
seat belt use.\5\ This study aimed to determine how drivers (at that
time) might accept technologies designed to increase seat belt use. As
part of this study, NHTSA conducted in-depth interviews and focus
groups to obtain a greater understanding of the perceived effectiveness
and acceptability of four technologies: two seat belt reminder systems
and two interlock systems (entertainment and transmission).\6\ The NAS
committee reviewed the available literature, held stakeholder meetings
with key automobile manufacturers and suppliers, and reviewed the
results of the in-depth interviews and focus groups conducted by NHTSA
for this study.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Buckling Up, Technologies to Increase Seat Belt Use,''
Special Report 278, Committee for the Safety Belt Technology Study,
https://www.TRB.org, 2003.
\6\ An entertainment interlock prevents playing the radio or
stereo unless seat belts are buckled. A transmission interlock
prevents putting the vehicle in gear unless seat belts are buckled.
\7\ Bentley, J.J., Kurrus, R., & Beuse, N. ``Qualitative
research regarding attitudes towards four technologies aimed at
increasing safety belt use.'' (Report 2003-01) Bethesda, MD: Equals
Three Communications. DOT HS 043 581.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the NAS study findings, transmission interlock systems were
perceived to be highly effective based upon the interviews and focus
groups conducted. More than 85 percent of respondents rated them
effective. However, only 43 percent rated them acceptable with the
hard-core non-users \8\ making up the highest percentage (71 percent)
of respondents who rated the transmission interlock not acceptable. The
recommendations from the study suggested that NHTSA and the private
sector encourage the research and development of seat belt interlock
systems for certain high-risk groups (e.g., drivers impaired by
alcohol, teenage drivers) who are overrepresented in crashes. It also
suggested that interlocks could be installed on company fleets. Other
recommendations issued by the NAS report involved seat belt reminders
and other strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Hard-core non-users are those who report never or rarely
using seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, NHTSA published a report on a field study that evaluated a
device that prevented drivers from shifting vehicles into gear for up
to 8 seconds unless the seat belt was buckled.\9\ This study showed
that a gearshift delay resulted in a significant 20 percentage-point
increase among two samples of commercial fleet drivers. This study also
noted that future research could investigate a complete transmission
seat belt interlock now that seat belt use is much higher than in the
1970s and that transmission interlocks may receive higher acceptance
than ignition interlocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Pilot Tests of a Seat Belt Gearshift Delay on the Belt Use
of Commercial Fleet (DOT HS 811 230)--Dec. 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the history of interlocks, and the statutory prohibition
against requiring or allowing seat belt interlocks as a compliance
option, manufacturers have primarily focused their efforts on
developing and introducing technologies that encourage seat belt use,
but that are acceptable to customers, such as seat belt reminder
systems. Such systems can be effective without being overly annoying.
In 2012, President Obama signed into law Public Law 112-141, the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). MAP-21, a
transportation reauthorization bill, removed the restriction from
permitting the use of seat belt interlocks as a compliance option.
However, the prohibition on requiring a seat belt interlock still
remains.
In 2013, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
published its findings from a national telephone survey it conducted on
the attitudes toward seat belt use and in-vehicle technologies for
encouraging seat belt use. The respondents were asked about their
support of different types of seat belt interlocks: a speed interlock,
a transmission interlock, an entertainment system interlock, and an
ignition interlock. The survey found that only about half of the full-
time seat belt users
[[Page 53388]]
supported the use of seat belt interlocks to encourage seat belt use
and even fewer part-time seat belt users and non-users supported their
use.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ D.G. Kidd, et al. ``Attitudes toward seat belt use and in-
vehicle technologies for encouraging belt use.'' Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety, January 2013. https://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1183.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Unbelted Test Requirements
Initially, the injury criteria limits in Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 had to be met for air bag equipped
vehicles in frontal rigid barrier crash tests at speeds up to 48 km/h
(30 mph), with the 50th percentile adult male dummies wearing seat
belts, and in separate barrier crashes at those speeds with dummies
being protected by automatic (passive) means (35 FR 16927). However,
due in part to litigation, the passive protection requirements did not
begin until the MY 1987 for passenger cars and MY 1995 for light trucks
and vans. The barrier test was performed with the dummies unbelted if
the means of passive protection was an air bag.\11\ In 1997, the agency
amended FMVSS No. 208 to provide a temporary option for manufacturers
to certify their vehicles to an unbelted sled test as an alternative to
the unbelted barrier test requirement (62 FR 12960). NHTSA established
the sled test option to address the air bag fatalities that were
occurring at the time, and to ensure that the vehicle manufacturers
could quickly depower all air bags so that they inflate less
aggressively. As part of the May 2000 final rule that required advanced
air bags, the sled test option was removed and vehicle manufacturers
were required to meet a rigid barrier crash test with both unbelted 5th
percentile adult female dummies and 50th percentile adult male dummies
in a 20 mph to 25 mph rigid barrier crash test (65 FR 30680).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ On September 2, 1993, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 208 to
require the installation of air bags as the means of providing
automatic crash protection (58 FR 46551). The full compliance date
for the amended requirements was September 1, 1997, for passenger
cars and September 1, 1998, for light trucks and vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Petition
On October 23, 2012, BMW Group, BMW of North America, LLC, (herein
referred to as the petitioner) submitted a petition to NHTSA to amend
FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' to permit a certification
option using a seat belt interlock for front seat occupants as an
alternative to the existing unbelted crash test.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The petitioner noted that it had initiated the action with
the Congress to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to give the
agency the authority to allow a seat belt interlock as a compliance
option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner cited several arguments in support of their request,
including the potential benefits associated with the increased use of
seat belts as well as the opportunity to design optimized systems for
belted occupants. The petitioner estimated that hundreds of lives could
be saved if FMVSS No. 208 was modified as requested and it suggested
that the number of lives that could be saved by increasing seat belt
use would be significant compared to other agency rulemakings (e.g.,
roof crush, ejection mitigation, tire pressure monitoring systems,
etc.). With regard to optimizing for belted occupants, the petitioner
noted that it was gathering additional simulation/user acceptability
data to share with the agency, as confidential business information.
However, the agency has not received that data to date.
By allowing vehicles to be optimized for belted occupants, the
petitioner claimed that vehicles will be lighter and more spacious, as
well as more fuel efficient with lower emissions. The petitioner
estimated that a 7 pound vehicle weight reduction (by removing knee
bolsters) would result in carbon dioxide (CO2) savings
between 274-406 metric tons per year and 30,850-45,744 gallons of fuel
saved per year.
The petitioner stated that by making interlocks a compliance
option, there would not be any cost burden associated with this
amendment and it would result in savings of Federal and State funds
(e.g., expenses for emergency medical services (EMS), hospital stays,
insurance, traffic, etc.). It also claimed that Federal funding for
seat belt initiatives could be used to fund other programs since seat
belt interlocks have the potential of increasing belt usage at no extra
cost to the government.
The petitioner identified three potential types of interlock
systems: An ignition interlock, a transmission interlock, and a speed-
limiting interlock. The petitioner noted that an ignition interlock
would likely have low customer acceptance, based on past reactions, and
have other disadvantages (e.g., does not allow remote starting,
encourages defeat mechanisms, etc.). The petitioner stated that a
transmission interlock has the benefits of an ignition interlock, but
allows the driver to warm up the vehicle or simply sit in the vehicle
with the heat or air conditioning running. The petitioner believed that
a speed-limiting interlock, that allows the vehicle to drive at low
speeds (ideal for short distance tasks, such as driving to a mail box,
towing situations, etc.), would be the least annoying and most accepted
type of interlock.
The petitioner further expressed its preference for a speed-
limiting interlock system that focuses on front occupants only. It
stated that monitoring rear seat belt usage would be problematic
because occupant detection in the rear would prevent consumers from
carrying cargo on the rear seats, which would likely result in consumer
backlash.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Occupant detection systems that rely on weight sensors
would have problems distinguishing occupants from cargo, which could
be a source of annoyance for drivers if cargo is triggering the
interlock system and not an unbuckled occupant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Analysis of Petition
The agency is denying the petitioner's request to allow a seat belt
interlock compliance option as an alternative to unbelted crash test
requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Removing the protection offered to
unbelted occupants would be unprecedented for NHTSA considering
unbelted crash test requirements date back to the 1970s (35 FR
16927).\14\ To do so without a sufficient scientific basis could lead
to unintended consequences and potentially negative outcomes. Given the
complex issues surrounding seat belt interlocks, the agency believes
that it would be desirable to have additional information beyond that
provided by the petitioner before deciding whether to pursue the
requested rulemaking action. The agency would like to evaluate the
safety case for rulemaking on this issue objectively and with a
reasonable degree of certainty. However, the agency does not have
sufficient information, at this time, to perform such an evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Due to many years of litigation, the passive protection
requirements did not begin until MY 1987 for passenger cars and MY
1995 for light trucks and vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there may be potential benefits of a seat belt interlock
system as a means of increasing seat belt use, as suggested by the
petitioner, the agency does not believe this is sufficient
justification, without additional information, for the requested
rulemaking. There are many other important considerations that we would
like addressed before deciding whether to pursue rulemaking. Among such
considerations would be user acceptability and potential disbenefits.
The following discussion provides further analysis of the justification
provided by the petitioner as well as other key factors that the agency
would want to consider before deciding whether to pursue rulemaking.
[[Page 53389]]
The petitioner's main arguments for permitting the use of seat belt
interlock systems as a compliance option are that it would increase
seat belt use rates among front seat occupants and allow manufacturers
to optimize their vehicle interior and safety restraint designs for
belted occupants. It also mentioned the added benefit of allowing
manufacturers the design freedom to create innovative lightweight
vehicle concepts.
The agency agrees with the theoretical premise that a seat belt
interlock system could have the potential to increase seat belt use
rates. This is consistent with our past research. However, the degree
to which seat belt use will increase is not clear and is likely
dependent on multiple factors. Since interlocks have not been present
in the vehicle fleet since the 1970s, it is difficult to make an
accurate assessment of their effectiveness and acceptance at this time.
We cannot assume the effects will be the same as they were in the past.
Given today's 86 percent seat belt use rate, if interlocks were re-
introduced into the vehicle fleet, we would not experience an eight-
fold increase in seat belt use that the 1975 study on the interlock
systems reported.
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to address the acceptance of
interlock systems, given their historical background. The IIHS's recent
survey suggested that the acceptance among part-time and non-users of
these systems has not improved over the years. This lack of acceptance
among the types of occupants that an interlock is intended to target
leads to the reasonable assumption that such occupants may attempt to
disable the interlocks. This is supported by the research findings and
the real world historical evidence of consumer backlash in the 1970s,
which resulted in motorists finding ways to disconnect or circumvent
their interlock system. The petitioner does not address how such a
system would be hardened to prevent it from being disabled or
circumvented, nor the expected actual effectiveness of the systems
based on the level of hardening.
Before deciding whether to pursue rulemaking, NHTSA would want such
information in order to evaluate the technologies available to limit
the possibility that seat belt interlock systems could be circumvented
or disabled and to evaluate potential test procedures to determine that
a vehicle certified by this option could not be circumvented or
disabled and the costs and expected effectiveness of added technologies
to ensure that. The petitioner did not provide specifics of how any of
the three types of systems it described would be hardened to prevent
circumvention or any means by which the agency could ensure the system
could not be defeated.
Another concern with an interlock system that is not universally
effective (i.e., results in some remainder of occupants unbelted) is
the potential risk of harm to those unbelted occupants. By allowing
manufacturers to opt out of complying with the unbelted frontal crash
test requirements, it potentially puts unbelted occupants at an
increased risk of harm. Before deciding whether to pursue rulemaking,
the agency would want to determine and quantify the potential
disbenefit to those remaining unbelted occupants in comparison to the
protection they are now offered. The petition lacked an analysis of
this issue.
The petitioner instead opined that the current unbelted test
requirements may result in a reduction of protection to belted front
seat occupants. It claimed that belted occupant protection can be
optimized if the unbelted tests were removed; however, no data were
submitted to substantiate this claim. The agency is further unaware of
any increased risk of injury to belted front occupants as a result of
vehicle optimization being done to meet both the unbelted and belted
crash protection requirements. Without detailed information on the
design changes the petitioner envisions that vehicle manufacturers will
make in order to offer better protection to belted front occupants in
the absence of an unbelted test requirement and the associated
quantified benefits, the agency is unable to assess the validity of the
petitioner's claim.
The petitioner also suggested that by permitting the use of a seat
belt interlock system as a compliance option, manufacturers could
optimize their vehicles to be ``lighter, more spacious and fuel
efficient.'' The petitioner stated that manufacturers are known to
modify the vehicle interior designs and oversize the restraint systems
in order to meet the unbelted frontal occupant crash protection
criteria. It estimated that by granting its petition, a 7 pound vehicle
weight reduction (by removing knee bolsters) would result in
CO2 and fuel savings.
We presume that by suggesting the removal of a restraint system
component, such as the knee bolster, the implication is that if there
were no unbelted test, the knee bolster could be removed. However, it
is unclear to the agency how removal of the knee bolster helps optimize
the protection offered to belted occupants, as the petitioner
suggested. It is also important to understand the extent of the safety
reduction, if removal of components like knee bolsters degrades the
protection of those occupants that might remain unbelted.
The agency acknowledges that equipment added to vehicles to comply
with safety standards may increase vehicle weight, and therefore have a
secondary, but generally very small, effect on vehicle fuel economy,
and, in some cases, decreased passenger compartment space. However,
when considering a petition to exempt a manufacturer from complying
with an occupant safety standard, the agency's first consideration
would be the effects of the proposed exemption on occupant safety.
Furthermore, the petitioner's requested amendments will not necessarily
lead to fuel economy gains that could be attributed to this rulemaking
action since there is no accompanying requirement on the part of the
vehicle manufacturer to achieve these fuel economy benefits.
The petitioner stated that by making interlocks a compliance option
there would be no resulting cost burden. It also claimed there would be
savings to society associated with reduction in expenses for such
things as EMS, hospitals, insurance, and traffic. It also claimed that
Federal funding for seat belt initiatives could be used elsewhere. The
agency has not traditionally estimated the cost burden to industry for
compliance options because the agency's focus is on whether the various
options will result in similar benefits. To the extent cost burden
would be considered, it is only one of many factors the agency must
consider in allowing an option. As we expressed above, the petition is
lacking other important information that the agency would want in order
to determine the merits of the petitioner's request.
As to the petitioner's claims of societal cost savings, we note
that the costs related to emergency medical services, hospital stays
and insurance would all be captured in our assessment of injury
reduction related to any increase in seat belt use. As to any cost
saving related to traffic reduction, we do not expect that an interlock
would prevent a crash from occurring, thus the assumption of a cost
saving related to this factor is speculative. Finally, as to the
claimed potential savings related to funding of seat belt use
initiatives, we note the following observations. First, even if a seat
belt interlock compliance option were allowed, it would only affect new
vehicles and there would be many legacy vehicles in the fleet without
interlocks. Second, since it would be a compliance option, the extent
to which this option will be
[[Page 53390]]
selected is unknown, again potentially leaving vehicles in the fleet
without interlocks. Thus, we predict that seat belt use initiatives
would need to remain in place for the foreseeable future.
Finally, we wish to make clear that the denial of this petition
does not restrict the petitioner, or any other manufacturer, from
voluntarily providing a seat belt interlock system in their
vehicles.\15\ In fact, such a voluntary implementation would likely
yield important real world data about interlock systems that could be
utilized by the agency in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ However, such a system cannot be considered when assessing
compliance with the FMVSS and thus all protection currently required
by FMVSS No. 208 to belted and unbelted occupants would remain in
force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. NHTSA Planned Seat Belt Interlock Systems Research
The agency is in the process of developing a research program on
seat belt interlock systems in an effort to understand the potential
for improving occupant safety in light of the agency's newly acquired
statutory authority to permit interlocks as a compliance option. The
human factors research program will gather data to help determine the
effectiveness and acceptance of seat belt interlock systems as well as
discuss potential minimum performance specifications for seat belt
interlock systems and their advantages/disadvantages (including those
needed to prevent defeating the system).\16\ The agency anticipates
participation by organizations leading the development of seat belt
interlock system prototypes (i.e., vehicle manufacturers and suppliers)
in these research efforts. To assess the potential impacts on unbelted
occupants, the agency initially plans on using occupant restraint
simulation models to understand the safety implications for optimizing
occupant compartments and restraint systems considering today's
regulatory requirements versus those that apply to belted occupants
only. We plan to complete these research studies in 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ This research is contingent upon the availability of seat
belt interlock system prototypes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Conclusion
After carefully considering all aspects of the petition, the agency
has decided to deny the petitioner's request to allow a seat belt
interlock compliance option as an alternative to the unbelted crash
test requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Given the complex issues
surrounding seat belt interlocks, the agency believes that it would be
desirable to have additional information, beyond the supporting
material provided by the petitioner, before deciding whether to pursue
the requested rulemaking action. The agency lacks field data or
sufficient research findings that would allow for the determination of
the optimal type of seat belt interlock system as it relates to
acceptance and the attributes necessary to harden against
circumvention. Nor do we have information to assess the potential level
of safety for belted and unbelted occupants that would result from such
a rulemaking.
The agency's effort to study seat belt interlock systems is in its
initial stages. Making a determination to include seat belt interlocks
as an alternative compliance option to the unbelted test requirements
of FMVSS No. 208 prior to completion of our research is premature.
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 1.95.
Issued in Washington, DC, on: August 19, 2013 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-21128 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
