[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60968-60970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23079]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2004-18813]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On September 26, 2003, NHTSA received a petition for 
rulemaking from Mr. Warren Howard requesting that the agency amend 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

[[Page 60969]]

(FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' to allow for ``the 
installation and standard feature'' of his patented device. The 
patented device would prevent the radio sound system of a vehicle from 
operating unless the safety belts are fastened. Based on the analysis 
of available information, NHTSA is denying the petition for rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. John Lee, 
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-112, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Telephone (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202) 493-2290.
    For legal issues: Mr. Chris Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-
112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: 
(202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 26, 2003, Mr. Warren Howard 
submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that NHTSA amend S7.3 of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash 
protection,'' to allow for ``the installation and standard feature'' of 
his patented device. The patented device would prevent the radio or 
sound system of a vehicle from emitting any sound or power unless the 
occupants of all designated seating positions have their seat belts 
fastened. According to the petitioner, the Audio System Seat Belt 
Safety Device would be installed in the seat and connected to the audio 
system of the vehicle. The system would sense when a person was seated 
and the audio system would not have power until the seat belt for that 
seated person was engaged. Once the seat belt was engaged, power would 
then be applied to the audio system. The petitioner further noted that 
this system could be installed on all seats within the same vehicle and 
not interfere with the audible and visual warning system required in 
FMVSS No. 208. The petitioner believed that such a device would 
encourage people to wear their safety belts and save thousands of lives 
each year, and billions of dollars in insurance costs.
    NHTSA has denied petitions for rulemaking in the past that were 
very similar in nature to that of Mr. Howard's petition. On November 5, 
1999 (64 FR 60625), the agency denied a petition for rulemaking 
submitted by Mr. Carl Nash and Mr. Donald Friedman. The petitioners 
requested an amendment to FMVSS No. 208 to ``require effective belt use 
inducement.'' The petitioners stated that the inducements could 
include, among other things, a disruption of electrical power to such 
``non-essential'' accessories as the radio, tape or CD player, and air 
conditioning. The petitioners argued that a safety belt use inducement 
would have the potential to save a minimum of 7,000 additional lives 
per year. In denying the petition, the agency stated it considered 
whether the new requirements would (1) likely result in additional 
safety benefits, (2) be acceptable to the public, and (3) be within our 
statutory authority. NHTSA stated that none of the petitioners' 
recommended inducements met all of these criteria.
    In response to the denial, Mr. Nash and Mr. Friedman resubmitted 
their petition request to the agency. The agency denied the second 
request in the preamble to the Advanced Air Bag Final Rule, published 
May 12, 2000 (65 FR 30680, 30733). The agency stated its belief that we 
do not have the statutory authority to require such devices; however we 
also stated that we would continue to monitor the level of public 
acceptance and effectiveness of systems that manufacturers are placing 
in their vehicles to encourage safety belt use. We stated that if it 
appeared that these systems were working, it might be appropriate to 
seek to have the 1974 amendment to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that 
prohibits NHTSA from requiring interlocks, either changed or repealed.
    In the House Report, 107-108, to the Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2002 (Pub. L. 107-87), Congress 
directed a study to examine the potential benefits of technologies to 
increase safety belt use, determine how drivers view the acceptability 
of the technologies, and consider whether legislative or regulatory 
actions were necessary to enable their installation on passenger 
vehicles.\1\ In response to this directive, NHTSA contracted with the 
Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 
to complete this study. Their report was published on October 14, 
2003.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ House of Representatives Report 107-108 Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2002, June 
22, 2001.
    \2\ ``Buckling Up, Technologies to Increase Seat Belt Use,'' 
Special Report 278, Committee for the Safety Belt Technology Study, 
www.TRB.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among their conclusions, the NAS report found that ``entertainment 
interlocks'' (e.g., devices that render the sound system inoperable 
until the driver buckles up) are ``perceived to be effective,'' but 
fewer than half of the respondents found them ``acceptable.'' The 
report also noted that some people might not experience an 
entertainment interlock (i.e., older people who do not use the radio, 
drivers on short trips, etc.), and it also noted that such interlocks 
could be circumvented (e.g., by installing an aftermarket stereo). The 
NAS study found that other less-intrusive technologies, such as non-
interlock systems, present greater opportunities for increasing safety 
belt use without the negative public reaction of interlocks. For 
entertainment interlock systems, such as that provided by Mr. Howard, 
the NAS report concluded that they would be most effective for younger 
drivers and not very effective at increasing belt use among hard-core 
nonusers and other high-risk groups. NHTSA generally concurs with this 
assessment.
    We note that a device that would disable a vehicle's radio or sound 
system if occupants are not belted is currently allowed to be installed 
in motor vehicles in addition to, but not in place of, the warning 
system required by S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208. Motor vehicle manufacturers 
may offer the device as optional or standard equipment at their 
discretion. In an April 11, 2003 letter to Mr. Howard, the agency 
stated that such a device may be offered either as an original 
equipment option or an aftermarket item, but it must be configured such 
that it can be differentiated from the warning system required by S7.3. 
A copy of this letter was included in Mr. Howard's petition. (See 
docket for this notice).
    The agency has denied similar petitions for rulemaking on 
entertainment interlocks within the past five years. With regard to Mr. 
Howard's device, the agency has provided the petitioner with a legal 
interpretation letter that stated that the voluntary installation of 
his specific patented device discussed in this petition is permitted. 
Given the agency's lack of authority to mandate interlock systems as a 
means of compliance with FMVSS No. 208 and the conclusions of the NAS 
report regarding public acceptability and effectiveness of these 
systems, the agency concludes that there is no basis for further 
rulemaking action on this issue nor any basis for considering seeking 
authority to require these interlock systems. This completes the 
agency's review of the petition for rulemaking. Accordingly, the 
petition for rulemaking is denied.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30162; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


[[Page 60970]]


    Issued on: October 6, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-23079 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P