Federal Motor Vehicle safety Standards, Occupant Crash Protection

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2003 / Proposed Rules
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will be withdrawn and all public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. See the
information provided in the direct final
rule which is located in the rules
section of the Federal Register.
Dated: July 28, 2003.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 03–20037 Filed 8–5–03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–03–15732]
RIN 2127–AI98

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA
proposes to amend Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208,
Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No.
208), to establish the same maximum
test speed and phase-in schedule for the
belted barrier test using the 5th
percentile adult female test dummy as is
required for belted tests using the 50th
percentile adult male test dummy
commencing September 1, 2007. The
effect of this proposal would be to
increase the maximum belted frontal
barrier crash test speed for the smaller
dummy from 48 km/h (30 mph) to 56
km/h (35 mph). Preliminary testing has

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:20 Aug 05, 2003

Jkt 200001

shown that at the higher test speed, a
belted 5th percentile adult female
dummy seated in accordance with
FMVSS No. 208 seating procedures may
record higher injury measurements than
a 50th percentile adult male dummy
tested in the same vehicle. Improving
performance beyond the 48 km/h (30
mph) test speed for the 5th percentile
adult female would require that air bag
and seat belt designs be optimized to
protect occupants in high speed crashes
without increasing the aggressiveness of
those systems to a level where they are
likely to induce injuries for out-ofposition occupants.
DATES: You should submit comments
early enough to ensure that Docket
Management receives them not later
than October 6, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
(identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
03–15732) by any of the following
methods:
• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
001.
• Hand Delivery : Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
Requests for Comments heading of the
Supplementary Information section of
this document. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to http://dms.dot.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading under
Regulatory Analyses and Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to http://
dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

46539

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, you may contact Lori
Summers, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, Light Duty Vehicle Division
by phone at (202) 366–1740, and by fax
at (202) 493–2739.
For legal issues, you may contact
Christopher Calamita of the NHTSA
Office of Chief Counsel by phone at
(202) 366–2992 and by fax at (202) 366–
3820.
You may send mail to both of these
officials at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Tests conducted to assess the feasibility of
a 56 km/h (35 mph) belted barrier test
requirement using the 5th percentile
adult female test dummy
III. Benefits and Costs Associated with the
Proposed Rule
IV. Effective Date of the Proposed Rule
V. Requests for Comments
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background
FMVSS No. 208 requires passenger
vehicles to be equipped with safety belts
and frontal air bags to prevent or
mitigate the effects of occupant
interaction with the vehicle interior in
a crash. While air bags have been very
effective in increasing the number of
people saved in moderate and high
speed frontal crashes, they have
occasionally been implicated in
fatalities in instances where vehicle
occupants were very close to the air bag
when it deployed. On May 12, 2000,
NHTSA published a final rule to require
that future air bags be designed to create
less risk of serious air bag-induced
injuries than current air bags and
provide improved frontal crash
protection for all occupants, by means
that include advanced air bag
technology (‘‘Advanced Air Bag Rule’’,
65 FR 30680).
The Advanced Air Bag Rule
established two phase-in schedules. In
the first phase-in, NHTSA will require
vehicle manufacturers to install air bag
systems that reduce the risk of air baginduced injury (particularly to young
children and small adult drivers), while
improving the frontal crash protection
provided by current air bag systems to
occupants of different sizes. In the
second phase-in, the agency will require
manufacturers to further improve upon
the existing air bag systems by
implementing a belted rigid barrier
crash test at impact speeds up to and
including 56 km/h (35 mph), rather than
48 km/h (30 mph) as has been required
for many years. The Advanced Air Bag

E:\FR\FM\06AUP1.SGM

06AUP1

46540

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Rule established, on an interim basis, a
maximum unbelted test speed for tests
using the 5th percentile adult female
and 50th percentile adult male dummies
of 40 km/h (25 mph). While the rule
retained the existing 48 km/h (30 mph)
belted test requirement for the 50th
percentile adult male test dummy
throughout the first phase-in, it added a
new belted test for the 5th percentile
adult female test dummy at impact
speeds up to and including 48 km/h (30
mph). It also established a 56 km/h (35
mph) maximum test speed for the 50th
percentile adult male in phase two of
the requirements (65 FR 30685).
While the agency has been performing
a 56 km/h (35 mph) frontal barrier
impact test with 50th percentile adult
male dummies in the New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP), now for
the first time, FMVSS No. 208 has rigid
barrier test requirements for belted
occupants at a higher test speed than for
unbelted occupants.1 Until the
Advanced Air Bag Rule, FMVSS No. 208
specified the same maximum test speed
for both belted and unbelted rigid
barrier testing. From the early 1970s,
when FMVSS No. 208 was first issued,
up through the early 1990s, when air
bags first began to be widely introduced,
seat belt use was quite low, reaching
only 51 percent in 1991. Since that time,
seat belt use has risen to 75 percent
nationally, and is as high as 92 percent
in states with primary seat belt laws and
strong enforcement programs. By
increasing the maximum speed for
belted testing requirements, the
Advanced Air Bag Rule amended
FMVSS No. 208 to better serve the
safety needs of the growing number of
Americans using seat belts on a regular
basis.
In the preamble to the Advanced Air
Bag Rule the agency stated that ‘‘we did
not propose including the 5th percentile
adult female dummy in [the 56 km/h (35
mph) phase-in] requirement because we
had sparse information on the
practicability of such a requirement.
NHTSA will initiate testing to examine
this issue and anticipates proposing
increasing the test speed for belted tests
using the 5th percentile adult female
dummy to 56 km/h (35 mph), beginning
at the same time that the 50th percentile
adult male is required to be used in
belted testing at that speed.’’ [60 FR
30680, 30690.] This position was
1 Vehicles manufactured after March 18, 1997 not
certified to the Advanced Air Bag Rule may comply
with the standard by means of an unbelted sled test,
as opposed to the unbelted rigid barrier test. 49 CFR
571.208, S13. The sled test does not involve an
impact with a rigid barrier but uses the same crash
pulse for each vehicle and fires air bags artificially
without the use of the vehicle sensor system.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:20 Aug 05, 2003

Jkt 200001

reiterated when the agency declined a
petition to immediately begin
rulemaking to establish a requirement
for vehicles to meet a 0–56 km/h (0–35
mph) belted barrier test with the 5th
percentile adult female dummy (66 FR
65376; December 18, 2001). However,
the agency continued research on the
feasibility and practicability of
increasing the testing speed for belted
testing using the 5th percentile adult
female dummy.
Based on the results of our research,
we are proposing to increase the
maximum belted rigid barrier test speed
for the 5th percentile adult female in
accordance with the same phase-in
schedule already adopted for the 50th
percentile adult male test dummy. The
proposed amendment would apply to
all vehicles required to meet the
requirements of the Advanced Air Bag
Rule.
II. Tests Conducted To Assess the
Feasibility of a 56 km/h (35 mph) Belted
Barrier Test Requirement Using the 5th
Percentile Adult Female Test Dummy
Preliminary testing conducted by
NHTSA and Transport Canada indicates
that a belted 5th percentile adult female
dummy may be subject to higher injury
measures than a belted 50th percentile
adult male dummy in comparable
frontal barrier crash tests, when both are
seated in accordance with the
applicable FMVSS No. 208 seating
procedures. In 2001, NHTSA conducted
a series of ten crashes to demonstrate
the feasibility of meeting the
performance requirements adopted in
the Advanced Air Bag Rule using belted
5th percentile adult female driver and
passenger dummies in a 56 km/h (35
mph) rigid barrier test. NHTSA then
conducted an additional eight tests
through a joint research program with
Transport Canada. Mini, light, and
medium passenger cars were tested,
along with sport utility vehicles,
minivans, and a pickup truck.2 None of
the tested vehicles were designed to
meet the new test requirements of the
Advanced Air Bag Rule (See, NHTSA–
2001–10687).
Of the eighteen vehicles tested, twelve
were able to meet the driver and right
front passenger dummy Injury
Assessment Reference Values (IARVs)
required under FMVSS No. 208. The six
vehicles that exceeded the IARVs for the
5th percentile adult female dummy
were found to exceed injury measures in
the head, chest, and/or neck regions.
When comparable NCAP crash tests
were conducted with 50th percentile
2 The vehicle classifications were based on those
adopted by NHTSA in NCAP.

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

adult male dummies, none of the adult
male dummies exceeded the IARVs.
In a test of a 2001 Dodge Durango, the
driver-side test dummy measured injury
levels that exceeded the IARVs for HIC,
Nij, and neck tension; the passenger
dummy exceeded the Nij criteria. Both
driver and passenger dummies exceeded
the chest acceleration criteria in a test
of a 2002 Chevy Trailblazer, with
acceleration levels approximately 17
percent higher than the levels measured
in the next highest vehicle for both
driver and passenger. The driver
dummy measured a Nij reading
equivalent to the IARV in a test of a
2001 Ford Taurus and two times the
IARV in a test of a 1998 Geo Metro. The
high injury measurement in the 1998
Geo Metro test was more indicative of
cars manufactured in the mid-1990s
than of newer models, many of which
have been redesigned to have a less
aggressive air bag deployment. In all
four of these vehicles, NHTSA believes
the high injury readings were the result
of the deploying air bag interacting with
the dummy.
The driver dummy in a 2001 Dodge
Grand Caravan test exceeded both Nij
and chest acceleration limits. Film
analysis of the test indicated that the
steering wheel rotated upward during
the crash test and the air bag
deployment pattern was such that it
inflated under the dummy’s chin,
causing high neck loads. At the same
time, the air bag may have failed to
prevent dummy contact with the
steering wheel through the air bag,
resulting in the high chest acceleration
measurement. The sixth test involved a
2001 Toyota Echo. In that test, the
driver dummy exceeded the HIC
criteria. It appears that in this instance
the force limiting seat belt system did
not yield effectively and allowed the
dummy’s head to snap forward and
exceed the HIC criteria. These tests
suggest that the deployment
characteristics of some air bag systems
and the force limiting capabilities of
some seat belt systems will need to be
optimized for the smaller occupants
represented by the 5th percentile female
dummy to provide better protection.
While the remaining twelve vehicles
all tested within the IARV limits, the
overall average injury values for the 5th
percentile adult female driver dummies
in these vehicles were somewhat higher
than the values for 50th percentile adult
male driver dummies tested in the same
vehicles. The greatest discrepancy was
with the neck injury criteria (Nij).
Fourteen of the tested vehicles met the
neck IARVs for the 5th percentile adult
female driver dummy, but on average
the Nij values for the 5th percentile

E:\FR\FM\06AUP1.SGM

06AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2003 / Proposed Rules
adult female driver dummy were nearly
double the Nij values registered for the
50th percentile adult male driver
dummies tested in the same vehicle.
The higher injury measures may result
from the proximity of the female
dummy to the steering wheel or
instrument panel. The seating procedure
for testing with the 5th percentile
female dummy places the dummy closer
to the steering wheel than the 50th
percentile adult male dummy, reducing
the distance between the dummy and
the deploying air bag. A major factor in
air bag-induced fatalities has been the
proximity of the occupant to the air bag
module at deployment. Therefore, this
amendment is intended to ensure that
belted small-stature drivers and any
belted passengers seated close to the air
bag are adequately protected in a high
speed crash.
These eighteen tests indicate both a
need for and the feasibility of extending
the 56 km/h (35 mph) maximum belted
test speed to include the 5th percentile
adult female dummy. If adopted, the
new requirement would improve the
equality of belted crash protection for
occupants of different sizes by requiring
the 5th percentile female and the 50th
percentile male belted rigid barrier
crash tests to use the same maximum
speed. As described above, compliance
with this amendment will likely lead to
further improvement of air bag and/or
seat belt systems.
III. Benefits and Costs Associated With
the Proposed Rule
NHTSA estimates that today’s
proposal, if adopted, could prevent
between five and six small occupant
fatalities per year and could also reduce
two to three moderate to severe injuries
(MAIS 2+).3 Compliance with the
proposal would reduce fatalities for
drivers by reducing fatal HIC values by
1.4–2.3 percent, fatal Nij values by 3.8
percent, and fatal chest g values by 2.8
percent. When applying these reduction
rates to the corresponding target
population, this translates to a reduction
in driver fatalities from head, neck and
chest injuries of 1–2, 1, and 2,
respectively. For passengers,
compliance would reduce fatalities by
reducing fatal HIC values by 0.9–1.5
percent. This translates to a reduction in
passenger fatalities by 1. The total
reduction in fatalities would be between
3 MAIS (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale)
represents the maximum injury severity at an
Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) level, regardless of
the nature or location of the injury. The AIS ranks
individual injuries by body region on a scale of 1
to 6 as follows: 1=minor, 2=moderate, 3=serious,
4=severe, 5=critical, and 6=maximum/currently
untreatable.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:20 Aug 05, 2003

Jkt 200001

five and six drivers and passengers
combined. Compliance with this
proposal would also reduce MAIS 2–5
injuries to drivers by reducing the
associated HIC values by 0.2–0.4
percent and the associated chest g
values by 0.2 percent. When applying
these reduction rates to the
corresponding target population, this
would result in a reduction in head
MAIS 2–5 head and chest injuries of 1–
2 and 1 respectively, or a total reduction
of MAIS 2–5 injuries of 2–3. A complete
discussion of how NHTSA arrived at its
estimates may be found in the
Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation
located in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Beyond reducing the rates of injury
and fatality to small-stature occupants,
increasing the maximum belted test
speed for testing with the 5th percentile
adult female dummy would expand
belted crash protection to occupants of
different sizes. The amendment would
address the potential hazard to all
belted occupants who are very close to
both the air bag module and the steering
wheel or instrument panel. By phasing
in a maximum test speed of 56 km/h (35
mph) for belted testing with the 50th
percentile adult male dummy, the
Advanced Air Bag Rule should improve
occupant protection for belted
occupants whose seats are positioned in
the mid-track position or further back.
Increasing the test speed to 56 km/h (35
mph) for 5th percentile female dummies
would oblige occupant protection
designers to concurrently focus on
improving the safety of small stature
belted drivers as well as other
individuals who for some reason have
the seat positioned closer to the
instrument panel or steering wheel.
Compliance with the proposal would
result in a nominal additional cost to
vehicle manufacturers. The test
procedure itself is already required at a
lower impact speed in FMVSS No. 208;
only the maximum impact speed would
be raised. Likewise, agency compliance
tests would use the same procedures
that will be used for the 48 km/h (30
mph) belted barrier test. Additionally,
as indicated by twelve vehicles that met
all IARVs in NHTSA’s test program,
many vehicles already meet the
proposed requirement. Measures
implemented to meet the 48 km/h (30
mph) crash test requirements for the 5th
percentile adult female test dummies
may also result in compliance with the
proposed 56 km/h (35 mph)
requirement with no additional changes.
To the extent additional measures
may prove necessary, improving
performance beyond the 48 km/h (30
mph) requirement could involve

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

46541

relatively simple changes. Air bag
inflation characteristics could be
redesigned through changes to the fold
pattern, vents, or the air bag algorithm
that would effectively modify the timing
between primary and secondary stages
of deployment. Changes could be made
to the electronic control module, which
controls the dual stage air bag. Possible
changes could include seat track sensors
and/or modified seat track lengths to
position the full forward seating
position further away from the steering
assembly. Safety belt pretensioners
could be used to remove the slack from
the safety belt and provide restraining
forces on the occupant earlier in the
crash, reducing forward excursion into
the steering wheel or deploying air bag.
Manufacturers may decide to use a
combination of technologies to
maximize the performance of the entire
occupant protection system.
Based on vehicle production
numbers, about 20 percent of new light
vehicles would have to change either
driver side or passenger side
performance to comply with the
proposal. Assuming a new light vehicle
fleet in 2005 of 15.9 million, 3.32
million vehicles would need to improve
driver side performance, with 0.92
million of these vehicles also having to
improve passenger side performance.
Manufacturers may be able to comply
with this proposal by changing the air
bag characteristics as described above.
There would be minimal costs
associated with this alternative. If
manufacturers were to comply with the
proposal by modifying the electronic
control module, 3.32 million driver side
and 0.92 million passenger side air bags
would need to be improved. At a unit
cost of $3.12 per vehicle, the total cost
for this implementation strategy would
be $10.36 million.
Of the vehicles that would need
improved performance, about 40
percent were equipped with a driver
seat track sensor and 60 percent were
not. Under a compliance strategy
incorporating seat track sensors, 1.32
million vehicles that would not comply
with the proposed requirements would
already be equipped with seat track
sensors. These 1.32 million vehicles
would need to modify the driver side air
bag inflation characteristics and
electronic control module, at a cost of
$3.12 per vehicle, or a total of $4.12
million. Two million of the vehicles that
would not comply with the proposal
would not be equipped with a seat track
sensor. These two million vehicles
would need to install a driver side seat
track sensor and change the air bag
characteristics. The cost of a sensor and
modification of the air bag

E:\FR\FM\06AUP1.SGM

06AUP1

46542

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2003 / Proposed Rules

characteristics would be $8.12 ($5.00 +
$3.12) per seat. The cost for the driver
side improvement would be $16.24
million. Of these two million vehicles,
0.92 million vehicles would also have to
make modifications to the front
passenger side. These modifications
may be able to be made through altering
the characteristics of the air bag. The
total cost for the compliance alternative
relying on seat track sensors would be
$20.36 million.
Manufacturers may also be able to
comply with the proposal using
pretensioners, with or without adopting
other refinements. For vehicles that
would not comply with the proposed
requirements but already have
pretensioners, manufacturers would
have to change the air bag electronic
control module or other restraint
characteristics. For vehicles that do not
comply with the proposed requirements
and do not have pretensioners,
manufacturers may have to install
pretensioners for both driver and
passenger sides and change the air bag
electronic module.
Eighty seven percent of the vehicles
that did not comply with the proposed
requirements had pretensioners,
indicating that pretensioners alone may
not be sufficient to meet the proposed
requirements. The 2.89 million vehicles
equipped with pretensioners that would
not comply with the proposal would
have to incorporate improved air bag
characteristics or adopt some other,
additional strategy to improve
performance of the overall system. At an
incremental cost of $3.12 per vehicle,
the cost for these vehicles would be
$9.02 million. Roughly 13 percent of the
vehicles that would need improved
performance had no pretensioners. The
addition of pretensioners to these 0.43
million vehicles, at a cost per seat of
$16.50 and installation in at both the
driver and front passenger position,
would equal $14.20 million. In addition,
these vehicles would also likely need to
improve their air bag characteristics at
a cost of $3.12 per vehicle, or $1.34
million for the portion of the fleet that
needed new pretensioners. The cost for
vehicles that required installation of
pretensioners would be $15.54 million.
The total estimated cost for compliance
based on the pretensioner option would
equal $24.56 million ($9.02 million +
15.54 million).
In summary, the overall cost of the
proposal would range from minimal
costs to $24.56 million, depending on
the implementation of technologies. A
complete discussion of how NHTSA
arrived at these costs may be found in
the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:20 Aug 05, 2003

Jkt 200001

located in the docket for this
rulemaking.
IV. Effective Date of the Proposed Rule
If adopted, this proposal would be
implemented according to the same
phase-in schedule as for the increase in
test speed for the 50th percentile adult
male dummy belted rigid barrier test.
Implementation of the proposed
requirement, if adopted, would be as
follows:
—35 percent of each manufacturer’s
light vehicles manufactured during
the production year beginning on
September 1, 2007 with an allowance
of advance credits for vehicles built
after September 1, 2006;
—65 percent of each manufacturer’s
light vehicles manufactured during
the production year beginning on
September 1, 2008 with an allowance
of carryover credits from vehicles
built after September 1, 2006.
—100 percent of each manufacturer’s
light vehicles manufactured during
the production year beginning on
September 1, 2009 with an allowance
of carryover credits from vehicles
built after September 1, 2006.
—All light vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2010.
If this proposal is adopted as a final
rule, the agency will permit
manufacturers that sell two or fewer
carlines in the United States at the
beginning of the first year of the phasein (September 1, 2007) the option of
omitting the first year of the phase-in.
Likewise, manufacturers that produce or
assemble fewer than 5,000 vehicles for
the U.S. market per year and multi-stage
manufacturers and alterers may defer
compliance with the new requirement
until September 1, 2010. This approach
is fully consistent with the existing
phase-in for the 0–56 km/h (0–35 mph)
belted test using the 50th percentile
adult male test dummy.
V. Request for Comments
To aid the agency in obtaining useful
comments, we are setting forth in this
section a specific list of questions for
commenters. For easy reference, the
questions are numbered consecutively.
NHTSA encourages commenters to
provide specific responses to each
question for which they may have
information or views. In addition, in
order to facilitate tabulating the
comments by issue, the agency
encourages commenters to respond to
the questions in sequence, and to
identify the number of each question to
which they are responding.
1. Overall safety. Does the overall
proposal achieve an appropriate level of

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

safety with respect to risks from air bags
for small stature drivers and passengers?
2. Possible unintended consequences.
To what extent could the proposed
increase in the test speed for the belted
frontal barrier crash test using the 5th
percentile adult female test dummy
result in unintended adverse
consequences?
3. Potential cost. What are the
potential costs for the technology and
design changes required to meet the
proposed amendment?
How Do I Prepare and Submit
Comments?
Your comments must be written and
in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your
comments.
Your comments must not be more
than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We
established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a
concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents
to your comments. There is no limit on
the length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your
comments, including the attachments,
to Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES.
Comments may also be submitted to
the docket electronically by logging onto
the Docket Management System website
at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ‘‘Help &
Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info’’ to obtain
instructions for filing the document
electronically. If you are submitting
comments electronically as a PDF
(Adobe) file, we ask that the documents
submitted be scanned using Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process,
thus allowing the agency to search and
copy certain portions of your
submissions.4
Please note that pursuant to the Data
Quality Act, in order for substantive
data to be relied upon and used by the
agency, it must meet the information
quality standards set forth in the OMB
and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines.
Accordingly, we encourage you to
consult the guidelines in preparing your
comments. OMB’s guidelines may be
accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s
guidelines may be accessed at http://
dmses.dot.gov/submit/
DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.
4 Optical character recognition (OCR) is the
process of converting an image of text, such as a
scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into
computer-editable text.

E:\FR\FM\06AUP1.SGM

06AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2003 / Proposed Rules
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments
Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your
comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by
mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business
Information?
If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you
should submit three copies of your
complete submission, including the
information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you
have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket
Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a
comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business
information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR part
512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late
Comments?
We will consider all comments that
Docket Management receives before the
close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above under
DATES. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments that Docket
Management receives after that date. If
Docket Management receives a comment
too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is
issued), we will consider that comment
as an informal suggestion for future
rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments
Submitted by Other People?
You may read the comments received
by Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The
hours of the Docket are indicated above
in the same location. You may also see
the comments on the Internet. To read
the comments on the Internet, take the
following steps:
(1) Go to the Docket Management
System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://
dms.dot.gov/).
(2) On that page, click on ‘‘Simple
Search.’’
(3) On the next page (http://
dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:20 Aug 05, 2003

Jkt 200001

digit docket number shown at the
beginning of this document. Example: If
the docket number were ‘‘NHTSA–
1998–1234,’’ you would type ‘‘1234.’’
After typing the docket number, click on
‘‘Search.’’
(4) On the next page, which contains
docket summary information for the
docket you selected, click on the desired
comments. You may download the
comments. However, since the
comments are imaged documents,
instead of word processing documents,
the downloaded comments are not word
searchable.
Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue
to file relevant information in the
Docket as it becomes available. Further,
some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you
periodically check the Docket for new
material.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), provides for making
determinations whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and to the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budget impact
of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
This rulemaking document was not
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not
considered to be significant under E.O.
12866 or the Department’s Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979).
This document proposes to amend 49
CFR 571.208 by increasing the
maximum belted frontal barrier crash
test speed from 48 km/h (30 mph) to 56

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

46543

km/h (35 mph) for the 5th percentile
adult female dummy. This proposal
would establish the same requirement
and phase-in schedule for testing with
a 5th percentile adult female dummy as
is currently required for the 50th
percentile adult male dummy.
Preliminary testing has shown that at a
maximum frontal barrier crash test
speed, a belted 5th percentile adult
female dummy may produce higher
injury measurements than a 50th
percentile adult male dummy tested in
the same vehicle. Increasing the
maximum belted crash test speed for the
5th percentile female would require
manufacturers to optimize safety belt
and air bag performance for both the 5th
percentile female and 50th percentile
male dummies at the same crash test
speed. The proposed amendment would
not necessarily require any additional
vehicle crash testing to be conducted by
the manufacturer and the test
procedures are already specified in the
FMVSSs. Measures to provide
protection to occupants the size of the
5th percentile adult female dummy are
currently being implemented to meet
the Advanced Air Bag Rule crash test
requirements up to 48 km/h (30 mph).
As noted above in the section entitled
Benefits and Costs Associated with the
Proposed Rule, the overall cost of the
proposal would range from minimal
costs to $24.56 million, depending on
the implementation of technologies. A
complete discussion of how NHTSA
arrived at these costs may be found in
the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation
located in the docket for this
rulemaking.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this
proposed action on small entities. I
hereby certify that this notice of
proposed rulemaking would not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
The following is the agency’s
statement providing the factual basis for
the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). If
adopted, the proposal would directly
affect motor vehicle manufacturers,
second stage or final manufacturers, and
alterers. SIC code number 3711, Motor
Vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies,
prescribes a small business size
standard of 1,000 or fewer employees.
SIC code No. 3714, Motor Vehicle Part
and Accessories, prescribes a small
business size standard of 750 or fewer
employees.
The majority of motor vehicle
manufacturers would not qualify as a
small business. These manufacturers,

E:\FR\FM\06AUP1.SGM

06AUP1

46544

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2003 / Proposed Rules

along with manufacturers that do
qualify as a small business, are already
required to comply with the 48 km/h
(30 mph) maximum crash test speed
requirements using 5th percentile adult
female dummies under the Advanced
Air Bag Rule of FMVSS No. 208.
Measures to provide protection up to 48
km/h (30 mph) are already being
implemented, and 12 of 18 vehicles
tested currently comply with the
proposed amendment (more than five
model years prior to the first proposed
phase-in). Improving performance to
further meet the proposed 56 km/h (35
mph) requirement could be achieved
through simple changes in safety belt
design or changes in air bag inflation
characteristics with low-cost algorithm
changes. Furthermore, small volume
manufacturers would be given the
option of waiting until the end of the
phase-in to meet the new requirements.
Most of the intermediate and final
stage manufacturers of vehicles built in
two or more stages and alterers have
1,000 or fewer employees. But again,
these companies already are required to
comply with the 48 km/h (30 mph)
belted 5th percentile adult female
dummy requirement. These companies
could either rely on the original
equipment manufacturer’s certification,
or employ similar low cost measures as
the large manufacturers. Accordingly,
there would be no significant impact on
small businesses, small organizations, or
small governmental units by these
amendments. For these reasons the
agency has not prepared a preliminary
regulatory flexibility analysis.
C. Executive Order No. 13132
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed
rule in accordance with the principles
and criteria set forth in Executive Order
13132, Federalism and has determined
that this proposal does not have
sufficient Federal implications to
warrant consultation with State and
local officials or the preparation of a
Federalism summary impact statement.
The proposal would not have any
substantial impact on the States, or on
the current Federal-State relationship,
or on the current distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various
local officials.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for
the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency
has determined that implementation of
this action would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:20 Aug 05, 2003

Jkt 200001

E. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the new procedures established
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid OMB control
number. For the phase-in reporting
requirements, NHTSA is submitting to
OMB a request for approval of the
following collection of information.
Public comment is sought on the
proposed collection.
Agency: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Title: Part 585—Advanced Air Bag
Phase-In Reporting Requirements.
Type of Request: Updated collection.
OMB Clearance Number: 2127–0599.
Form Number: This collection of
information will not use any standard
forms.
Requested Expiration Date of
Approval: Three years from the date of
approval.
Summary of the Collection of
Information
So that NHTSA could ensure that
vehicle manufacturers are certifying
their applicable vehicles as meeting the
rigid barrier test using the belted 5th
percentile adult female test dummy,
NHTSA would require vehicle
manufacturers to report on compliance
of their vehicles with the upgraded
frontal barrier crash test for the 5th
percentile adult female test dummy. The
report would be included with the
required reports for the phase-in of the
higher test speed for the 50th percentile
adult male dummy.
This proposal would be implemented
according to the same phase-in schedule
as for the increase in test speed for the
50th percentile adult male dummy
belted rigid barrier test. Implementation
of the proposed requirement, if adopted,
would be as follows:
—35 percent of each manufacturer’s
light vehicles manufactured during
the production year beginning on
September 1, 2007 with an allowance
of advance credits for vehicles built
after September 1, 2006;
—65 percent of each manufacturer’s
light vehicles manufactured during
the production year beginning on
September 1, 2008 with an allowance
of carryover credits from vehicles
built after September 1, 2006.
—100 percent of each manufacturer’s
light vehicles manufactured during
the production year beginning on
September 1, 2009 with an allowance
of carryover credits from vehicles
built after September 1, 2006.
—All light vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2010.

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

If this proposal is adopted as a final
rule, the agency would permit
manufacturers that sell two or fewer
carlines in the United States at the
beginning of the first year of the phasein (September 1, 2007) the option of
omitting the first year of the phase-in.
Likewise, manufacturers that produce or
assemble fewer than 5,000 vehicles for
the U.S. market per year and multi-stage
manufacturers and alterers could defer
compliance with the new requirement
until September 1, 2010. This approach
is fully consistent with the existing
phase-in for the 0–56 km/h (0–35 mph)
belted test using the 50th percentile
adult male test dummy.
For each year of the phase-in period,
manufacturers would be required to
provide to NHTSA, within 60 days after
August 31 of each ‘‘production year,’’
information identifying the vehicles (by
make, model, and vehicle identification
number (VIN)) that have been certified
as complying with the belted barrier test
upgrade.
Description of the Need for the
Information and Proposed Use of the
Information
NHTSA would need this information
to ensure that vehicle manufacturers are
certifying their applicable vehicles as
meeting the new belted barrier test
using the 5th percentile female. NHTSA
will use this information to determine
whether a manufacturer has complied
with the amended requirements of
FMVSS No. 208 during the phase-in
period.
Description of the Likely Respondents
(Including Estimated Number, and
Proposed Frequency of Response to the
Collection of Information)
NHTSA estimates that 21 vehicle
manufacturers would submit the
required information. For each report,
the manufacturer will provide, in
addition to its identity, several
numerical items of information. This
information would include:
(a) Total number of vehicles
manufactured for sale during the
preceding production year,
(b) Total number of vehicles
manufactured during the production
year that meet the new regulatory
requirements, and
(c) Information identifying the
vehicles (by make, model, and vehicle
identification number (VIN)) that have
been certified as complying with the
belted barrier test upgrade.

E:\FR\FM\06AUP1.SGM

06AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2003 / Proposed Rules
Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting
and Recordkeeping Burden Resulting
From the Collection of Information
NHTSA estimates that each
manufacturer will incur 61 burden
hours per year. This is an increase in
one additional annual burden hour to
the estimated annual burden for the
existing OMB clearance, 2127–0599.
This estimate is based on the fact that
data collection would involve only
computer tabulation and that
manufacturers would provide the
information to NHTSA in an electronic
(as opposed to paper) format. We
anticipate the data collection to involve
the same vehicles as for the upgrade of
the belted barrier test using the 50th
percentile adult male test dummies.
NHTSA estimates that the
recordkeeping burden resulting from the
collection of information would be 0
hours because the information will be
retained on each manufacturer’s existing
computer systems for each
manufacturer’s internal administrative
purposes.
NHTSA estimates that the total
annual cost burden would be increased
by $735 dollars (1 additional hour × 21
manufacturers × $35 cost per hour).
There would be no capital or start-up
costs as a result of this collection.
Manufacturers could collect and
tabulate the information by using
existing equipment. Thus, there would
be no additional costs to respondents or
recordkeepers.
NHTSA requests comment on its
estimates of the total annual hour and
cost burdens resulting from this
collection of information. Please submit
any comments to the NHTSA Docket
Number referenced in the heading of
this notice or to: Lori Summers, Office
of Rulemaking, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC
20590. Ms. Summers’ telephone number
is: (202) 366–1740. Comments are due
within 60 days of the date of publication
of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
in the Federal Register.
F. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Under the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal
agencies and departments shall use
technical standards that are developed
or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, using such technical
standards as a means to carry out policy
objectives or activities determined by
the agencies and departments.’’ If
adopted, the amendments would use the
technical standards currently in FMVSS

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:20 Aug 05, 2003

Jkt 200001

No. 208 and would only increase the
maximum speed for the frontal barrier
crash test using the 5th percentile adult
female dummy from 48 km/h (30 mph)
to 56 km/h (35 mph). No voluntary
consensus standard uses a maximum
speed of 56 km/h (35 mph) for a frontal
barrier crash test using a 5th percentile
adult female dummy.
G. Civil Justice Reform
This proposal would not have any
retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.
21403, whenever a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect, a
State may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect
of performance which is not identical to
the Federal standard, except to the
extent that the state requirement
imposes a higher level of performance
and applies only to vehicles procured
for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 21461 sets
forth a procedure for judicial review of
final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for
reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit
in court.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits
and other effects of proposed or final
rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by
State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This rulemaking would not result
in expenditures by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector in excess of $100 million
annually.
I. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental, health, or safety risk that
NHTSA has reason to believe may have
a disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
we must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned
rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This proposed rule is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
E.O. 12866 and does not involve

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

46545

decisions based on environmental,
health, or safety risks that
disproportionately affect children. The
proposed rule, if made final, would
increase the maximum belted frontal
crash barrier test speed from 48 km/h
(30 mph) to 56 km/h (35 mph) for the
5th percentile adult female dummy.
J. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 18, 2001) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be economically
significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and is likely to have a significantly
adverse effect on the supply of,
distribution of, or use of energy; or (2)
that is designated by the Administrator
of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant
energy action. If made final, this
rulemaking would increase the
maximum belted frontal crash barrier
test speed from 48 km/h (30 mph) to 56
km/h (35 mph) for the 5th percentile
adult female dummy. Therefore this
proposal was not analyzed under E.O.
13211.
K. Data Quality Act
Section 515 of the Fiscal Year (FY)
2001 Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106–554,
sec. 515, codified at 44 U.S.C. 3516
historical and statutory note),
commonly referred to as the Data
Quality Act, directed OMB to establish
government-wide standards in the form
of guidelines designed to maximize the
‘‘quality,’’ ‘‘objectivity,’’ ‘‘utility,’’ and
‘‘integrity’’ of information that federal
agencies disseminate to the public. The
Act also required agencies to develop
their own conforming data quality
guidelines, based upon the OMB model.
OMB issued final guidelines
implementing the Data Quality Act (67
FR 8452, Feb. 22, 2002). On October 1,
2002, the Department of Transportation
promulgated its own final information
quality guidelines that take into account
the unique programs and information
products of DOT agencies (67 FR
61719). The DOT guidelines were
reviewed and approved by OMB prior to
promulgation.
NHTSA made information quality a
primary focus well before passage of the
Data Quality Act, and has made
implementation of the new law a
priority. NHTSA has reviewed its data
collection, generation, and
dissemination processes in order to
ensure that agency information meets
the standards articulated in the OMB
and DOT guidelines, and plans to
review and update these procedures on
an ongoing basis.

E:\FR\FM\06AUP1.SGM

06AUP1

46546

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2003 / Proposed Rules

NHTSA believes that the information
and data used to support this
rulemaking adhere to the intent of the
Data Quality Act and comply with both
the OMB and DOT guidelines. NHTSA
has reviewed all relevant procedures for
research and analysis in order to ensure
that information disseminated by the
agency is accurate, reliable, and
unbiased in substance, and is presented
in a clear, complete, and unbiased
manner. Having followed those
procedures, NHTSA believes that the
information related to this rulemaking
meet the requirements of the Data
Quality Act guidelines of both OMB and
DOT. This expectation regarding
information quality has been confirmed
by the agency in the course of its predissemination review, per the
guidelines.
Individuals may review all of the data
related to this rulemaking by accessing
NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA–03–15732
through the DOT docket management
Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. See
Section N. of this notice for further
instructions.
L. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and the
President’s memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all
rules in plain language. Application of
the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following
questions:
• Have we organized the material to
suit the public’s needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that isn’t clear?
• Would a different format (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing) make the rule easier to
understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections
be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding
tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the
rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these
questions, please include them in your
comments on this proposal.
M. 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.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:20 Aug 05, 2003

Jkt 200001

N. 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 http://dms.dot.gov.

Issued on: August 1, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03–20054 Filed 8–5–03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571, 585, 586, 589, 590,
and 596

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–03–15817; Notice 1]

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, and Tires.

RIN 2127–AI91

In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part
571 as set forth below.
PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571
would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.208 would be amended
by revising S16.1(a) to read as follows:
§ 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant
crash protection.

*

*
*
*
*
S16.1 General provisions. * * *
(a) Belted test. (1) Vehicles certified to
S14.1 or S14.2. Place a 49 CFR part 572
subpart O 5th percentile adult female
test dummy at each front outboard
seating position of a vehicle, in
accordance with the procedures
specified in S16.3 of this standard.
Impact the vehicle traveling
longitudinally forward at any speed, up
to and including 48km/h (30 mph), into
a fixed rigid barrier that is
perpendicular within a tolerance of ±5
degrees to the line of travel of the
vehicle under the applicable conditions
of S16.2 of this standard.
(2) Vehicles certified to S14.3 or
S14.4. Place a 49 CFR part 572 subpart
O 5th percentile adult female test
dummy at each front outboard seating
position of a vehicle, in accordance with
the procedures specified in S16.3 of this
standard. Impact the vehicle traveling
longitudinally forward at any speed, up
to and including 56km/h (35 mph), into
a fixed rigid barrier that is
perpendicular within a tolerance of ±5
degrees to the line of travel of the
vehicle under the applicable conditions
of S16.2 of this standard.
*
*
*
*
*

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This document proposes to
require all designated seating positions
in rear seats, other than side-facing
seats, be equipped with integral lap/
shoulder safety belts. This proposal
responds, in part, to a Congressional
mandate that the agency begin to phasein requirements for lap/shoulder belts
for all rear seating positions, wherever
practicable, not later than September 1,
2005.
DATES: You should submit your
comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not
later than October 6, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
[identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
03–15817] by any of the following
methods:
• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For

E:\FR\FM\06AUP1.SGM

06AUP1