70904 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1 ‘‘The requirement prescribed under subsection 

(a)(1) shall be implemented in phases on a 

production year basis beginning with the 

production year that begins not later than 12 

months after the end of the year in which the 

regulations are prescribed under subsection (a). The 

final rule shall apply to all passenger motor 

vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 

pounds or less that are manufactured in the third 

production year of the implementation phase-in 

under the schedule.’’

V. Effect of Delay on Revised Incident 

Reporting Requirements 

On December 3, 2003 (68 FR 67745), 

we published a final rule under docket 

HM–229 revising the incident reporting 

requirements in §§ 171.15 and 171.16 of 

the HMR and the Hazardous Materials 

Incident Report Form. On May 26, 2004 

(69 FR 30113), we published a final rule 

making several corrections to the 

December 3, 2003 final rule and 

extending its effective date until January 

1, 2005. We extended the effective date 

of the incident reporting final rule to 

provide sufficient time for development 

and testing of the software to enable 

electronic reporting of incidents and for 

outreach to the regulated community. 

Several persons have suggested that, 

because the HM–229 final rule 

references definitions adopted in the 

HM–223 final rule, the effective date for 

the HM–229 final rule must coincide 

with the effective date for the HM–223 

final rule. We do not agree. As stated 

above, the HM–223 final rule adopts 

definitions that are based on longstanding administrative determinations 

as to the applicability of the HMR to 

specific functions and activities. These 

administrative determinations remain in 

effect even though the effective date of 

the HM–223 final rule is delayed. 

The HM–229 final rule expands the 

incident reporting requirements to each 

person who is in physical control of a 

hazardous material while it is being 

transported in commerce. Generally, the 

person in physical control of the 

hazardous material during 

transportation will be either the carrier 

or the person having physical control of 

the hazardous material for the time that 

it may be stored during transportation. 

The HM–229 final rule states, 

‘‘Consistent with the definitions 

adopted in the HM–223 final rule, 

storage incidental to movement is 

storage by any person of a transport 

vehicle, freight container, or package 

containing a hazardous material 

between the time that a carrier takes 

physical possession of the hazardous 

material until the package containing 

the hazardous material is physically 

delivered to the destination indicated 

on a shipping document.’’ (68 FR 67751) 

The HM–223 definition for ‘‘storage 

incidental to movement’’ is consistent 

with previously issued preemption 

determinations and letters of 

clarification concerning the 

applicability of the HMR to storage 

operations (see preamble discussion to 

the NPRM published under docket HM–

223 on June 14, 2001; 66 FR 32434–36). 

Thus, notwithstanding the delay in the 

effective date of the HM–223 final rule, 

the incident reporting requirements 

adopted in HM–229 apply to persons in 

physical possession of a hazardous 

material between the time that the 

hazardous material is offered for 

transportation to a carrier and the time 

it reaches its intended destination and 

is accepted by the consignee ‘‘that is, 

to carriers and to owners or operators of 

facilities at which the hazardous 

material may be stored during 

transportation.

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 

2004, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

part 1. 

Samuel G. Bonasso, 

Deputy Administrator, Research and Special 

Programs Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–26852 Filed 12–7–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 571, 585, 586, 589, 590, 

596, and 597

[Docket No. NHTSA–04–18726] 

RIN 2127–AI91

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document adopts 

NHTSA’s proposal to require all 

designated seating positions in rear 

seats, other than side-facing seats, be 

equipped with Type 2 integral lap/

shoulder safety belts. Side-facing seats 

may be equipped with either a Type 1 

lap belt or a Type 2 belt. This final rule 

responds to a Congressional mandate 

that the agency begin to phase-in 

requirements for lap/shoulder belts for 

all rear seating positions, wherever 

practicable, not later than September 1, 

2005.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments 

made in this rule are effective 

September 1, 2005. Petitions: Petitions 

for reconsideration must be received by 

January 24, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

should refer to the docket and notice 

number of this document and be 

submitted to: Administrator, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Sanjay 

Patel, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards, at 202–366–4583. 

For legal issues, you may call 

Christopher Calamita, Office of the 

Chief Counsel, at 202–366–2992. 

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. Summary of the Proposed Requirements 

III. Summary of Public Comments 

IV. Summary of the Final Rule 

V. Requirements of the Final Rule 

A. General Requirements 

B. Allowance for Detachable Type 2 Belts 

1. Removable Seats 

2. Folding Seats 

3. Seats Located Adjacent to An Aisle 

4. Bus Seats 

5. Swivel seats 

VI. Phase-In of the New Requirements 

VII. Other Issues

VIII. Costs and Benefits Associated With the 

Final Rule 

IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background 

On December 4, 2002, the President 

signed into law ‘‘Anton’s Law’’, Public 

Law 107–318 (December 4, 2002; 116 

Stat. 2772), which provides for the 

improvement of child safety devices 

when installed in motor vehicles. One 

of the provisions of Anton’s Law 

mandates the installation of lap/

shoulder belts in rear seating positions. 

Specifically, section 5(a) of the law 

directs the Secretary of Transportation, 

through NHTSA, to issue a final rule by 

December 2004 that would:

require a lap and shoulder belt assembly for 

each rear designated seating position in a 

passenger motor vehicle with a gross vehicle 

weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, 

except that if the Secretary determines that 

installation of a lap and shoulder belt 

assembly is not practicable for a particular 

designated seating position in a particular 

type of passenger motor vehicle, the 

Secretary may exclude the designated seating 

position from the requirement.

Section 5(b) of the statute further 

specifies that the final rule be 

implemented in phases on a production 

year basis, beginning with the first 

production year after the year the final 

rule is published.1 The rule is to be 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70905

2A LTV is a vehicle other than a trailer or 

passenger car designed to carry ten or fewer people. 

LTVs consist of light trucks, vans and sport utility 

vehicles.

3 ‘‘Effectiveness of Lap/Shoulder Belts in the Back 

Outboard Seating Positions,’’ Evaluation Division, 

Plans and Policy, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Washington, D.C. June 1999. DOT 

HS 808 945.

effective for all vehicles by the third 

production year of the phase-in. Thus, 

according to the schedule mandated by 

Anton’s Law, the phase-in would 

commence on September 1, 2005, and 

all vehicles would have to meet the 

requirements of the final rule by 

September 1, 2007.

NHTSA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing 

to implement section 5 on August 6, 

2003 (68 FR 46546) [Docket No. 

NHTSA–03–15817; Notice 1]. A detailed 

history of the agency’s rulemaking 

activities related to the regulation of 

safety belts in the rear seat of vehicles 

is provided in that document. 

One of the primary reasons for today’s 

rule is the increased protection that 

children between the ages of four and 

eight gain by having a lap/shoulder belt 

made available in rear inboard seating 

positions. When these Type 2 belts are 

installed in the rear inboard seating 

position, there is an additional, and 

potentially safer, seating position 

available for a child in a belt-positioning 

booster seat. Approximately 77% of the 

passenger car fleet and 49% of the light 

truck and van (LTV) fleet 2 currently on 

the road already have Type 2 belts in 

the rear inboard seating position. Belt 

positioning booster seats should enable 

children to attain the same effectiveness 

rates from lap/shoulder belts as the rest 

of the population, since they allow 

proper positioning for children in the 

four-to eight-year-old age group. 

Additionally, the presence of an inboard 

lap/shoulder belt may shift seat usage 

from the outboard positions to inboard 

seat positions. This would lead to some 

reduction of injury or death in side 

impact crashes.

The potential benefits associated with 

requiring lap/shoulder belts for rear 

inboard seating positions are not limited 

to the potential for increased use of 

booster seats. It would also benefit older 

occupants. Current belt use among rear 

inboard-seated passengers in passenger 

cars is approximately 50 percent, while 

the belt use among rear inboard-seated 

passengers in LTVs is slightly higher at 

57 percent. In a 1999 study, NHTSA 

found that belt use was approximately 

seven to ten percent higher at rear 

outboard designated seating positions 

with a lap/shoulder belt than at ones 

with only a lap belt.3 We are unsure 

why the presence of a Type 2 belt is 

associated with this increased level of 

safety belt use. Whatever the reason, the 

combination of higher belt use and 

increased benefits related to the 

additional protection afforded by the 

shoulder belt results in greater benefits 

than lap belts alone. This is true for 

every forward-facing seating position. 

Thus, the increase in belt use 

attributable to the presence of a Type 2 

belt in the rear inboard seating positions 

introduces the potential to reduce the 

risk of serious injury or death for 

occupants seated in this position.

If the switch from lap belts to lap/

shoulder belts in rear inboard seating 

positions did not lead to any increase in 

belt use, NHTSA estimates that the 

addition of a shoulder belt to the rear 

inboard seating positions of passenger 

cars would prevent 5 fatalities and 111 

injuries (AIS 2–5) annually. Similar 

numbers, 5 fatalities and 134 injuries 

(AIS 2–5) would be achieved in 

requiring lap/shoulder belts in the rear 

inboard seats of LTVs. These reductions 

in injuries and fatalities are purely the 

result of the added protection offered by 

the shoulder belt. 

As noted above, the agency has 

observed a seven to ten percent increase 

in belt usage for seating positions 

equipped with a lap/shoulder belt rather 

than just a lap belt. Assuming that the 

switch to lap/shoulder belts leads to a 

ten percent increase in belt use, the 

agency would expect to see the benefits 

increase to 16 fewer fatalities, 77 fewer 

AIS 1 injuries, and 202 fewer AIS 2–5 

injuries in passenger cars equipped with 

rear inboard lap/shoulder belts. 

Likewise, it would expect to see the 

benefits increase to 17 fewer fatalities, 

60 fewer AIS 1 injuries, and 293 fewer 

AIS 2–5 injuries in LTVs equipped with 

rear lap/shoulder belts. Most of the 

reduction in injuries would be in the 

AIS 2 range. These are injuries that, 

while not life-threatening, can result in 

significant financial costs and long-term 

pain and suffering. 

As discussed in the NPRM, this 

rulemaking seeks to increase the use of 

belt-positioning booster seats and to 

improve the safety of all occupants in 

the inboard rear seating position, 

regardless of whether the occupant is 

seated in a booster seat. We believe that 

today’s rule will provide occupants 

seated in the rear inboard seat position 

with the same level of safety belt 

protection as the occupants of other 

seating positions. 

II. Summary of the Proposed 

Requirements 

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed 

adopting a requirement for lap/shoulder 

belts for all designated seating positions 

other than the inboard front seat for all 

passenger cars and for most other 

vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) or less and side-facing seats. 

Side-facing seats that are designated 

seating positions were proposed to be 

equipped with a lap belt only. Inboard 

seating positions in the front seat would 

not have been required to have a Type 

2 belt because the projected benefits, 

when compared to the cost involved in 

requiring lap/shoulder belts for this 

seating position, are so low. 

In proposing to require lap/shoulder 

belts for rear seats, NHTSA tentatively 

decided to retain some vehicle 

exceptions to the current rear lap/

shoulder provisions contained in 

FMVSS No. 208. Specifically, rear 

designated seats in motor homes, walkin van-type trucks, and vehicles 

designed to be sold exclusively to the 

U.S. postal service would be excluded 

from the rear lap/shoulder belt 

requirements. The rear seats in LTVs 

carrying chassis-mount campers with a 

GVWR greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) 

and no greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) 

would need to be equipped with a lap 

belt only.

We also tentatively decided to require 

Type 2 belts for rear-facing seats and for 

forward-facing outboard seats adjacent 

to an aisle. FMVSS No. 208 currently 

allows a rear forward-facing outboard 

seat to be equipped with only a lap belt 

if that seat is adjacent to an aisle that 

runs between the seat and the side of 

the vehicle and is used to gain access to 

seats rearward of the seat. This 

exclusion was added to the standard 

because of the potential ingress/egress 

problems created by shoulder belts for 

those more rearward seats and because 

attaching belt anchorages to the side of 

the vehicle could cause a lap/shoulder 

belt to fit its user poorly. With the 

advent of safety belt technologies like 

lap/shoulder belts that are integrated 

into the seat back and ceiling-mounted 

anchors, we queried whether such an 

exception was still needed. 

In the NPRM, the agency stated that 

it was not planning on changing the lap/

shoulder belt requirements for swivel 

seats or readily removable seats. Both of 

these types of seats may have modified 

lap/shoulder belt assemblies. We noted, 

however, that such an exception may no 

longer be needed because of new safety 

belt designs. As discussed more fully 

later in this document, we have decided 

to make some changes to these 

requirements based, in part, upon 

industry responses to our request in the 

NPRM for comments on the continuing 

need for such exceptions. 

70906 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

4Two of the comments related to a 

misunderstanding caused by a typographical error 

in the notice incorrectly implying that the proposal 

addressed lap/shoulder belts in small school buses. 

That error was acknowledged by NHTSA in a letter 

to Michael Martin of the School Bus Information 

Council dated February 9, 2004, and NHTSA 

reiterates here that safety belts on school buses are 

not affected by today’s rule. A third comment, by 

Honda, addressed a housekeeping matter in the 

NPRM that was intended to have no substantive 

change. Specifically, in the NPRM, the agency 

proposed placing all phase-in reporting 

requirements in a single part of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). Currently, each FMVSS with a 

phase-in requirement has a corollary part in the 

CFR specifying the content and form of required 

phase-in compliance reports. Honda noted minor 

errors in the proposed regulatory text that are 

hereby corrected. No further discussion of these 

three comments is necessary.

While not proposing any changes to 

the current FMVSS No. 208 comfort and 

convenience requirements and the 

various barrier tests contained in 

FMVSS No. 208, we sought comment on 

whether rear seat requirements should 

be considered. Since the benefits 

associated with lap/shoulder belts can 

only be realized if they are used 

correctly, the agency queried whether it 

was appropriate to consider requiring 

adjustable upper anchorages. 

NHTSA anticipated that the addition 

of a shoulder belt to the rear inboard 

seating positions in passenger cars and 

LTVs would prevent between 10 to 33 

fatalities and 245 to 632 injuries (AIS 1–

5) per year. If all inboard seating 

positions were equipped with lap/

shoulder belts, we estimated that 15 to 

49 fatalities and 260 to 804 injuries (AIS 

1–5) could be prevented per year in 

passenger cars and LTVs annually. 

In the NPRM, we estimated that 

approximately 23% of passenger cars 

and 57.5% of LTVs would need to be 

equipped with an additional shoulder 

belt if the final rule were adopted as 

proposed. Additionally, if NHTSA were 

to require an inboard lap/shoulder belt 

for light trucks with only one row of 

seats, approximately 11 percent 

(966,128) of the LTV fleet would need 

to be equipped with an additional lap/

shoulder belt. 

NHTSA estimated that the net cost of 

installing the shoulder belt portion of a 

lap/shoulder belt in the inboard rear 

seat of a passenger car or LTV would 

average $15.41. The total net cost 

associated with replacing lap belts with 

lap/shoulder belts at rear inboard 

seating positions was anticipated to be 

approximately $109 million. 

For the purpose of estimating costs, 

NHTSA assumed that most 

manufacturers would choose to install 

lap/shoulder belts that are integrated 

into the seat back if there were no place 

to install an upper shoulder belt 

anchorage along the existing vehicle 

structure. We estimated the cost of 

reinforcing the seat back of these seats 

to be approximately $31.08 per seating 

position, for a total estimated cost of 

approximately $109 million. 

We anticipated the total cost of the 

rule would be $218.8 million. 

III. Summary of Public Comments 

Thirteen comments were submitted in 

response to the NPRM.4 Ford Motor 

Company (Ford), General Motors (GM) 

and the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers (Alliance) generally 

supported the NPRM, but provided 

insight on the cost and feasibility of lap/

shoulder belts integrated into vehicle 

seat backs, a technology for which the 

agency specifically requested 

information. The Recreation Vehicle 

Industry Association (RVIA) requested 

that conversion vans be exempted from 

compliance during the phase-in or that 

a one year extension of the phase-in 

period be added. Flexsteel Industries, a 

seat manufacturer for the conversion 

van industry, requested that the agency 

adopt an exception for folding sofa-style 

seats akin to that currently provided for 

swivel seats.

Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety (Advocates), Syson-Hille and 

Associates (Syson-Hille), SafetyBeltSafe 

U.S.A., and Bidez and Associates 

generally supported the proposal, but 

argued that the agency had not 

sufficiently addressed the safety of 

children in the rear seat in its notice. 

The National Automobile Dealers 

Association (NADA) supported the 

proposed rule, and urged the agency to 

adopt a lap/shoulder belt for the front 

inboard seating position in single row 

vehicles (i.e., pick-up trucks). NADA 

also requested that the agency discuss in 

the preamble to this rule whether 

retrofit kits and LATCH anchorages 

would be promoted or considered in 

future rulemakings. Since this 

rulemaking does not address LATCH 

anchorages, this comment will not be 

discussed further. 

IV. Summary of the Final Rule 

Today’s rule requires Type 2 belts in 

rear seating positions largely as 

proposed in the NPRM. However, we 

have decided to narrow the existing 

exceptions for removable and swivel 

seats and for the seating positions 

located adjacent to an aisle. Based on a 

survey of the current fleet and 

submissions by commenters, we believe 

the exceptions currently in effect are 

neither needed nor in the best interests 

of safety. Additionally, we have decided 

to provide a limited exception for 

folding seats, a seat design that has 

become increasingly popular in LTVs 

and has long been used in station 

wagons and hatch-backs. 

We have decided against requiring 

Type 2 belts for front inboard seats 

because the cost associated with such a 

requirement cannot be justified by the 

exceptionally low likelihood of 

occupancy. Manufacturers are welcome 

to install Type 2 belts at this position 

voluntarily. Likewise, manufacturers 

may install Type 2 belts at side-facing 

seating positions, although only lap 

belts are required. 

We are not granting RVIA’s request 

that manufacturers of conversion vans 

be provided with an additional year for 

compliance with today’s requirement 

because the time period for compliance 

is dictated by statute. Even if this were 

not the case, the agency believes its 

accommodation of removable seats is 

sufficient to address RVIA’s concerns. 

Finally, as noted earlier, we are 

placing all phase-in reporting 

requirements in 49 CFR Part 585, 

including the new requirements 

currently located in Part 586 and 597. 

These two regulations were not in effect 

when the NPRM was published. A new 

subpart detailing the phase-in reporting 

requirements for FMVSS No. 138, Tire 

pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) 

will be added to Part 585 as part of the 

TPMS final rule. 

V. Requirements of the Final Rule 

A. General Requirements

Today’s rule requires all rear 

designated seating positions in motor 

vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) or less, other than side-facing 

seats, be equipped with a Type 2 belt. 

The rule applies to both forward-facing 

and rear-facing seats. For rear-facing 

seats, a Type 2 belt is unlikely to 

provide substantially greater benefits 

than a lap belt in a frontal crash. 

However, Type 2 belts should reduce 

the risk of injury in a rear crash and will 

provide a distinct benefit in all crash 

modes if actually worn. Since data 

indicate an increased likelihood that an 

occupant will wear a Type 2 belt when 

he or she would not wear a lap belt, this 

potential for increased usage should not 

be discounted. 

Very few manufacturers produce 

vehicles with rear-facing seats. 

However, Ford stated in its comment 

that both the rear-facing seats in the 

Volvo station wagon and the Taurus/

Sable station wagon are already 

equipped with lap/shoulder belts at the 

outboard seating position. These seats, 

the only rear-facing seats in Ford’s fleet 

of vehicles, do not have an inboard 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70907

5This report may be viewed at http://

europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/automotive/

pagesbackground/safetybelts/

safety_of_passengers_cranfield.pdf.

6Based on cost ($161.9 million for front inboard 

seats and $239.8 million for rear inboard seats) 

divided by equivalent lives saved, discounted at a 

rate of 7 percent (15.42 for front inboard seats and 

52.47 for rear inboard seats).

seating position. The upper shoulder 

belt anchorages for these seats are 

attached to the C-pillar, as are the upper 

anchorages for the forward-facing seats 

immediately forward of the rear-facing 

seats. Other manufacturers installing 

rear-facing seats should be able to use 

the same upper anchorage design 

philosophy as Ford. Ford noted in its 

comment that the addition of an inboard 

seating position would require vehicle 

redesign, most likely in the form of a 

belt integrated into the seat. To the 

extent a rear-seat falls within one of the 

limited exceptions detailed below, that 

exception is available to the rear-facing 

seat. Since rear-facing seats typically 

fold down to create cargo space, a 

detachable Type 2 belt would likely be 

permitted for the inboard seating 

position. 

We have decided against extending 

today’s requirements to side-facing seats 

because we believe the addition of a 

shoulder belt at this seat position is of 

limited value, given the paucity of data 

related to side-facing seats. Aside from 

two anecdotal cases reported from 

Syson-Hille in its comment on the 

NPRM, we are unaware of any reported 

injuries to belted occupants seated in a 

side-facing seat. In both of the instances 

cited by Syson-Hille, the seat was 

equipped with a lap belt only. Further, 

requiring Type 2 belts at side-facing 

seats may not be practicable given that 

the shoulder belt may not provide 

restraint in frontal and rear impacts. 

Again, we lack the data to make such a 

determination. 

We have decided against prohibiting 

shoulder belts for side-facing seats, a 

position contemplated in the NPRM, 

because we are unaware of any 

demonstrable increase in associated 

risk. There have been some claims that 

a shoulder belt increases the risk of neck 

injury during a frontal collision. The 

Australian Design Rule ADR 5/04, 

‘‘Anchorages for Seatbelts’’ has 

specifically prohibited shoulder belts 

for side-facing seats since 1975. 

However, it appears that this 

prohibition was based on a perceived 

risk rather than any documented 

injuries. We note that a study 

commissioned by the European 

Commission regarding side-facing seats 

on minibuses and motor coaches found 

that the addition of a panel directly in 

front of a side-facing seat would best 

protect a restrained occupant in a 

frontal crash in a manner that would 

prevent either spool-out from the belt or 

belt loading against the neck.5 While 

such a design may be desirable, the 

agency presently cannot demonstrate 

any risk to overall safety sufficient 

either to prohibit shoulder belts 

altogether or to require they only be 

used in conjunction with a 

compartmentalization feature like a 

panel.

Likewise, we have decided against 

requiring Type 2 belts for the front 

inboard seating position in any vehicles. 

Both GM and Ford were opposed to 

adding such a requirement for any 

vehicles, while Advocates, NADA and 

SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. urged that a 

requirement be adopted at a minimum 

for vehicles with only a single row of 

seats. 

Assuming a ten percent increase in 

belt usage based on the presence of a 

Type 2 belt instead of a lap belt, we 

estimate that requiring Type 2 belts for 

the inboard front seat would result in 16 

fewer fatalities and 69 fewer injuries 

(AIS 2–5). If Type 2 belts were required 

for the front inboard seats in passenger 

cars and LTVs, the estimated cost per 

equivalent life saved would be $10.50 

million compared to $4.57 million for 

the rear inboard seats in those vehicles.6

Part of the reason for the cost disparity 

is that the inboard seating position of a 

front seat is only very rarely used. 

Accordingly, NHTSA does not believe it 

can justify the cost associated with 

mandating lap/shoulder belts in the 

front seat, even when only a single row 

of seating is available.

In passenger cars and LTVs with more 

than a single row of seats, front seats 

with an inboard seating position are 

typically 60/40 split bench seats which 

allow 60% of the seat to be adjusted 

independently of the remaining 40%. 

GM stated that with such a design it 

would be difficult to install an 

integrated safety belt that did not 

present significant problems with safety 

belt fit. We note that the rear bench 

seats on many LTVs also utilize a 60/40 

design, yet there appear to be no major 

problems installing Type 2 belts for the 

inboard position of these seats. 

However, independent seat adjustment 

is likely to be an issue for front seats. 

Since we have decided against requiring 

Type 2 belts for front inboard seating 

positions based on cost considerations, 

we need not address the issue of 

whether the potentially unique 

characteristics of front bench seats 

preclude effective installation of Type 2 

belts for the inboard seating position. 

The inboard seating position in pickup trucks with only a single row of seats 

potentially raises different practicability 

problems as the front seat in vehicles 

with both front and rear seats. GM 

argued against requiring Type 2 belts for 

these single row seats, claiming a lap/

shoulder belt requirement for these 

seating positions would require 

significant strengthening of the vehicle 

floor or reconfiguration of the rear 

window. In contrast, Syson-Hille and 

SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. noted that several 

manufacturers already have lap/

shoulder belts in the inboard seating 

position of either single row pick-up 

trucks or the rear bench seat of trucks 

with two rows of seats. NHTSA 

acknowledges the feasibility of 

installing an inboard lap/shoulder belt 

in a single row pick-up, particularly 

when the vehicle does not have a 60/40 

bench seat. While some reinforcement 

of the seat or the back of the cab may 

be necessary, we do not consider this 

degree of redesign to be insurmountable. 

However, we have decided against 

mandating Type 2 belts for the inboard 

seating positions of these seats because 

the safety benefits associated with 

mandating Type 2 belts in the inboard 

front seating positions is too small to 

justify their cost. In part, this is due to 

the low belt use rate in this position: 

12.2 percent. However, we expect 

manufacturers will continue their 

practice of voluntarily installing Type 2 

belts. 

We have also decided to retain the 

existing exception from FMVSS No. 

208’s Type 2 belt requirements for 

motor homes, walk-in vans and postal 

vehicles. Only Syson-Hille commented 

on the exception in its entirety, arguing 

that there was no reason to continue to 

exempt any vehicles from the belt 

requirements of the standard. It 

observed that most manufacturers of the 

exempted vehicles already install Type 

2 belts for the front outboard seats. 

RVIA and Ford supported retaining the 

existing exception for motor homes, 

with RVIA noting the large number of 

seats in motor homes with multifunctional applications. SafetyBeltSafe 

U.S.A. was opposed to retaining the 

exception for motor homes, stating that 

families are often unaware that the rear 

seating positions in these vehicles are 

not required to be equipped with the 

same belts systems as other vehicles.

While we agree that the Syson-Hille 

and SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. comments 

may have merit, we do not have 

sufficient information to know the full 

implications that removing the 

exemption would have on those seating 

70908 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

7These seats are manufactured by TDM, an aftermarket seat supplier.

positions. While the exempted vehicles 

may already be equipped with Type 2 

belts at the front outboard positions, 

equipping the back seats of these 

vehicles with a Type 2 belt may present 

different challenges. The rear seats of 

these vehicles often have multifunctional or unique applications that 

may make installation of a Type 2 belt 

impracticable. Accordingly, we are not 

making any changes to the exception in 

today’s rule. 

B. Allowance for Detachable Type 2 

Belts 

FMVSS No. 208 currently permits 

detachable shoulder belts on Type 2 

belts installed in the outboard rear seats 

that are removable and swivel seats. For 

both of these seat designs, the shoulder 

belt may be detachable from the lap belt 

at either the upper or lower anchorage, 

but not both. A manufacturer may use 

a push button release similar to releases 

used for non-detachable belts. While the 

standard permits detachability of the 

shoulder portion of the belt, many 

manufacturers use a ‘‘minibuckle’’

design that permits the entire belt to 

detach from the seat and retract into the 

upper shoulder anchorage. This design 

is also used on belt systems currently 

required to have only a lap belt. This 

minibuckle design reduces the 

possibility for misuse since the lap belt 

is not independently available for use. 

The regulatory language governing belt 

detachability for swivel seats is different 

than that applicable to removable seats 

because the shoulder portion of the belt 

is only designed to be used when the 

seat is in its forward-facing mode and 

the standard requires that a lap belt be 

provided for all other seat positions that 

can be used while the vehicle is in 

motion. Thus, the minibuckle design 

does not appear to have an application 

for swivel seats. Given the advances in 

safety belt technology, we asked 

whether it was appropriate to reconsider 

the detachability allowances for these 

seats. 

In the NPRM, the agency 

acknowledged that for certain seat 

designs Type 2 belts could not be 

installed without integrating the upper 

shoulder anchorage into the seat back or 

permitting designs that allow for 

detachability of the shoulder belt. 

Because detachable belts can be 

misused, we were particularly 

interested in exploring the possibility of 

integrated belts. 

Ford and RVIA opposed any 

requirement that would have the effect 

of mandating integrated seat belts at any 

seating position. Ford noted that the 

cost associated with strengthening both 

the seat and the floor pan were 

significant and that the additional 

weight added to a seat as a result of this 

strengthening was sufficient to make 

removability of the seats impractical. 

Ford argued that the seats would 

become so heavy that they could not be 

readily removed. GM noted that one of 

its vehicles has a removable seat with an 

integrated safety belt, but acknowledged 

that the additional weight could make it 

more difficult to remove the seat. 

RVIA’s concerns were related to a 

folding or removable sofa-type bench 

seat commonly installed in conversion 

vans. It argued that the cost associated 

with integrating Type 2 belts into such 

a seat would be too costly compared to 

the potential benefits associated with 

requiring Type 2 belts for this seat 

design. 

The Alliance urged the agency to 

consider adopting a rule that would 

expand the existing allowance for 

detachable shoulder belts to seats 

beyond those currently permitted under 

FMVSS No. 208. It noted that 

manufacturers are moving away from 

removable seats and towards fold-down 

designs that permit the seat to be stored 

in the vehicles. Ford and GM advocated 

permitting detachable belts for small 

buses, although Ford’s dealerships offer 

seats with integrated belts as an option 

on Ford’s E-series vans.7

We have decided to retain the existing 

detachability provisions with some 

revision. Additionally, we have decided 

to expand the detachability provision to 

the inboard seating position of folding 

seats, bus seats, and outboard seats 

adjacent to an aisle. We believe that 

integrated belt designs are not an 

optimal design for all types of seats. 

They appear to be particularly 

problematic for removable seats because 

of the added weight. 

We have determined that the 

minibuckle design commonly found in 

the rear inboard seat positions of folding 

seats and in outboard seats adjacent to 

an aisle can be incorporated into a 

vehicle at about half the cost of an 

integrated belt. The cost of installing a 

shoulder belt in the inboard seat is 

approximately $16.00 per seat. The cost 

of strengthening the seat to 

accommodate the shoulder belt is 

approximately $31.00. If a detachable 

belt is used, the cost of the shoulder belt 

is similar to the previous cost ($16.00). 

Also, the cost associated with 

strengthening the roof structure to 

accommodate the shoulder belt 

anchorage is approximately $16.00. The 

total cost for an integrated belt would be 

approximately $47.00, while the 

approximate total cost for a detachable 

belt system would be $32.00. 

We will no longer permit a 

pushbutton design to detach the belt; 

instead, a key or key-like object must be 

used to detach the belt. In its comment 

to the NPRM, the Alliance noted that 

minibuckle systems often cannot be 

released via a pushbutton. Rather, an 

object can be inserted into the buckle 

through a small hole to release the latch. 

We believe this design feature reduces 

the likelihood that the minibuckle will 

be inadvertently released. 

Manufacturers may choose to use the 

door or ignition key since these keys are 

always likely to be in the driver’s 

possession when the belt needs to be 

detached. Consistent with our intention 

to maximize correct use of the belt, 

there is no provision requiring that a 

tool be used to reattach the belt. We 

anticipate that manufacturers will 

continue to use an attachment 

mechanism that permits the belt simply 

to plug into the mated latch. 

Additionally, except for swivel seats, 

we will no longer permit the shoulder 

belt to be detached independently of the 

lap belt. We are concerned that an 

occupant may choose to use only the lap 

portion or the shoulder portion of the 

belt if independent detachability is 

permitted. The performance of shoulder 

only belts and lap only belts has 

historically proven to be problematic 

and is part of the reason we now require 

Type 2 belts. 

These new requirements apply to the 

belts at all seating positions for which 

a detachable belt is permitted. Although 

we did not propose to change the 

existing requirements for the outboard 

seating positions, we expressed our 

opinion that provision for detachability 

may no longer be warranted and 

specifically sought comment on whether 

to continue to permit detachable 

designs. Based on our review of the 

existing fleet and comments from 

vehicle manufacturers, we have 

determined that the need for 

detachability still exists, but not in the 

form presently permitted. 

1. Removable Seats 

No commenters opposed the retention 

of the existing detachability allowance 

for readily removable seats. The 

detachability allowance was intended to 

facilitate removal of these seats for cargo 

carrying purposes. Certainly 

detachability appears to be the only 

option for an inboard seating position 

other than integrated seats; otherwise, 

the seats could not be removed from the 

vehicle. As noted above, integrated seat 

designs add additional weight to the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70909

8While Ford stated in its comments that bodymounted belts pose a risk to other occupants in a 

crash, it did not provide a basis for this statement. 

We are puzzled as to why this risk would present 

itself in a bus but not in a LTV. Because we believe 

body-mounted belts can be safely mounted in 

buses, we are not extending the detachability 

Continued

seat and impose additional costs on 

manufacturers. 

We note that many new LTVs with 

removable seats do not offer detachable 

Type 2 belts at the rear outboard seating 

positions. Instead, the manufacturers 

have chosen either to use integrated 

Type 2 belts or to mount the upper and 

lower shoulder anchorages to the 

outboard pillars. Thus, while permitting 

detachability for these seating positions 

at this time, we plan to monitor the 

need to retain the detachability 

allowance for outboard positions on 

readily removable seats.

We also note that this provision for 

detachable belts for seating positions on 

readily removable seats should relieve 

much of RVIA’s and FlexSteel 

Industry’s concerns with sofa-type 

bench seats since RVIA stated that these 

seats are generally removable. 

2. Folding Seats 

While not proposed in the NPRM, we 

are extending our allowance for 

detachable Type 2 belts to inboard 

seating positions on folding seats, as 

urged by the Alliance. As noted by the 

Alliance, manufacturers appear to be 

moving away from removable seats 

toward seats that can be folded into the 

floor pan, providing additional cargo 

carrying capacity. Unlike the inboard 

seating position on a removable seat, a 

Type 2 belt that is not integrated into a 

folding seat can remain attached to the 

vehicle while the seat is in its stowed 

position. However, as discussed by the 

Alliance, prohibiting detachability 

limits the effective use of the cargo 

carrying space. This is because the 

shoulder belt would extend from the 

upper anchorage down into the folded 

seat. 

Given the increased use of minibuckle 

designs for the inboard seating positions 

of folding seats currently in production, 

we are confident that this type of 

detachability can resolve the concerns 

raised by the Alliance while assuring 

the presence of a Type 2 belt in the 

inboard seating positions. We have 

decided against permitting detachable 

belts at the outboard seating position of 

these seats because FMVSS No. 208 

does not currently have such an 

allowance and we believe 

manufacturers can use the roof or side 

pillars to attach the upper shoulder 

anchorage. The problems associated 

with interference of the shoulder belt 

and cargo are not applicable to outboard 

seating positions because the shoulder 

belt will be adjacent to the vehicle’s 

interior paneling. 

Rather than adopting the Alliance’s 

suggestion that folding seats be defined 

as ‘‘seats that can be folded into the 

floor pan,’’ we have defined the term 

‘‘folding seat’’ to mean any seat which 

permits the folding of the entire seat 

back such that no part of the seat back 

extends more than 10 inches above the 

highest seating reference point on the 

seat. Under this definition those sofatype seats installed in conversion vans 

would likely qualify as a folding seat, 

and a minibuckle design could be used 

at the center seating position. 

We believe the suggested wording 

provided by the Alliance is nonobjective and arguably could require 

that the seat fold completely flat. While 

folding seats in minivans may fold 

completely flat, those on station wagons 

and smaller SUVs generally fold at a 

slight angle. We believe detachability 

should be limited to those 

circumstances in which the cargo 

carrying capacity of the vehicle would 

otherwise be adversely affected. The 

slight angle in the folding seat design of 

these vehicles does not impair the cargo 

carrying capacity of the vehicle when 

the seat is in its folded position. Given 

the width of the seat back structure, we 

believe the 10-inch allowance will 

accommodate these seats without 

creating a definition of a folding seat 

with near universal applicability. We 

have decided to measure from the 

highest seating reference point because 

a seat may have different seating 

reference points among its different 

designated seating positions. 

We acknowledge the Alliance’s 

comment that many sedans have rear 

seat designs that permit part, but not all 

of the seat back to fold down to 

accommodate long, narrow cargo such 

as skis. If the seat design is such that the 

entire seat cannot be folded down, we 

believe the vehicle should have 

sufficient structure behind the rear seat 

to anchor the upper shoulder belt 

anchorage. Accordingly, no provision 

for detachability is needed. 

3. Seats Located Adjacent to an Aisle 

Currently, rear outboard seats located 

adjacent to an aisle are permitted to 

have only a lap belt. We have decided 

to require these seats be equipped with 

a Type 2 belt because we believe the 

belt technologies currently used for 

these seating positions demonstrate the 

feasibility of a Type 2 design. GM has 

provided Type 2 belts for this type of 

seat since 1991. The GM system uses the 

same type of minibuckle design 

discussed above. Ford also provides a 

Type 2 belt for its seats located adjacent 

to an aisle. Ford did not provide 

information on whether its belts were 

detachable, but urged the agency to 

adopt a detachability allowance. 

NHTSA has long recognized that belts 

installed at seating positions located 

adjacent to an aisle can impede ready 

access to or egress from seats located 

behind them. This is why we originally 

allowed lap belts at these seating 

positions. While recognizing the benefit 

of a Type 2 belt over a lap belt, we 

believe there is a need for Type 2 belts 

at this seating position to be detachable. 

Accordingly, we are adopting a 

detachability allowance for these seating 

positions. 

4. Bus Seats 

In the NPRM, the agency proposed to 

require Type 2 belts in all rear 

designated seating positions of buses 

with a GWVR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or 

less. These small buses are primarily 12- 

and 15-passenger vans. We specifically 

sought comment on potential benefits 

and disadvantages associated with such 

a requirement, as well as potential 

technological impediments. Based on 

the comments, we have decided to 

require Type 2 belts, but to permit 

detachability. 

We received four comments 

addressing the proposed requirement, 

all of them supportive. Syson-Hille and 

SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. noted that 12- and 

15-passenger vans are often used by 

child care facilities and church groups 

to transport children. Given this use, 

they believe it is important to require a 

Type 2 belt for these seats. Syson-Hille 

also pointed out that the European 

Union requires all buses manufactured 

since 1999 to have either Type 2 belts 

or lap belt with energy-absorbing seats. 

To meet a Type 2 belt requirement for 

small buses, both Ford and GM 

suggested that integrated belts would be 

required. While integrated seats might 

require additional seat and floor 

structure for an integrated belt design, 

GM stated that there was no 

technological impediment to an 

integrated belt design. Syson-Hille 

noted that the Mercedes mini-bus sold 

in Europe has integrated Type 2 belts for 

every rear designated seating position. 

While it appears that integrated belts 

may be the best technological solution 

for Type 2 belts in buses, we have 

decided to permit detachability for 

inboard designated seating positions on 

buses, regardless of whether the seats 

are removable, may be folded, or are 

adjacent to an aisle.8 For vehicles with 

70910 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

allowance to outboard seats on buses unless they 

are adjacent to an aisle. This approach is consistent 

with the rest of today’s rule.

multiple rear inboard seating positions 

(i.e., three or more), the cost of 

equipping those seating positions with 

detachable belts is considerably less 

than that necessary to accommodate seat 

back and floor pan reinforcements 

associated with integrated belts. Thus, it 

is appropriate to provide sufficient 

flexibility to permit bus manufacturers 

to install Type 2 belts in a manner that 

accommodates different floor structure 

designs and interior architectures.

5. Swivel Seats 

Currently, FMVSS No. 208 specifies 

that seats that can be adjusted to be 

forward-facing and to face in some other 

direction (e.g., swivel seats) must have 

at least a lap belt at all positions in 

which the seat may be placed while the 

vehicle is in motion. Additionally, the 

seat must have a Type 2 belt that is 

usable while the seat is in its forwardfacing position. The shoulder portion of 

the Type 2 belt may be detachable from 

the lap portion, thus requiring only a 

single belt design to accommodate all 

potential seating positions. The 

standard also permits readily removable 

seats to have a shoulder belt that may 

be detached at either the upper or lower 

shoulder belt anchorage, but not both.

In the NPRM, we sought comment on 

whether there was any reason to retain 

this exception, given the availability of 

integrated Type 2 belt designs. It 

appears that swivel seats are only used 

in the conversion van industry and in 

vehicles altered or modified for persons 

with disabilities. Only RVIA was able to 

provide any opinion on the cost 

associated with Type 2 belts and swivel 

seats. However, it was unable to provide 

any cost estimates on integrated belts 

since they are not used by the 

conversion van industry. The belts 

currently used for these seats were 

developed at a time when the 

conversion van industry was much 

larger than it is now, and it was in a 

better position to spread the cost 

associated with product development 

among a much larger industry. 

Accordingly, we believe the 

development costs associated with 

developing swivel seats that have a 

Type 2 belt integrated into the seat are 

likely to be too large for the industry to 

withstand. 

Nevertheless, we do have concerns 

about the degree of detachability 

currently permitted for these seats 

under FMVSS No. 208. We believe that 

the belts for swivel seats should provide 

the same level of protection as the belts 

for other seats. The current 

requirements provide the occupant with 

the option of using a Type 2 belt when 

the seat is facing forward. However, 

these requirements are inconsistent with 

the new requirement that rear-facing 

seats be equipped with a Type 2 belt. 

Accordingly, we have amended the 

provision for belt detachability for 

swivel seats to require a Type 2 belt 

when the seat is positioned in either the 

forward or rear-facing mode (including 

any position ± 30 degrees from the 

forward-or rearward-facing mode), and a 

lap belt when positioned in all other 

modes that can be used while the 

vehicle is in motion. 

VI. Phase-In of the New Requirements 

Anton’s Law requires that NHTSA 

issue a final rule not later than 

December 2004. It further specifies that 

the final rule be implemented, in stages, 

starting not later than September 1, 

2005, and be fully implemented no later 

than September 1, 2007. Thus, the rule 

will be phased-in between September 1, 

2005 and September 1, 2007. We did not 

receive any comments on the proposed 

phase-in schedule, other than a request 

by RVIA that conversion vans be given 

an additional year for compliance. 

Accordingly, we are adopting the 

following phase-in schedule as 

proposed in the NPRM: 

• MY 2006 (September 1, 2005 

through August 31, 2006): 50 percent of 

all vehicles that are produced by 

manufacturers and are subject to the 

phase-in must comply. Advance credits 

for early compliance may be used on a 

one-to-one basis. 

• MY 2007 (September 1, 2006 

through August 31, 2007): 80 percent of 

all vehicles that are produced by 

manufacturers and are subject to the 

phase-in must comply. Advance credits 

may be used on a one-to-one basis. 

• MY 2008 and beyond (on or after 

September 1, 2007): all vehicles, 

regardless of whether they are subject to 

the phase-in, must comply. No advance 

credits may be used. 

The phase-in schedule for this 

rulemaking is dictated by statute. Thus, 

NHTSA does not have the authority to 

provide manufacturers of conversion 

vans an additional year to certify 

compliance with the new requirements, 

as requested by RVIA. However, as 

proposed in the NPRM, we have 

decided against applying the phase-in 

requirements to manufacturers of fewer 

than 5,000 vehicles produced for the 

U.S. market each year, manufacturers of 

incomplete vehicles, and alterers. No 

comments were submitted objecting to 

the agency’s proposal to excuse them 

during the phase-in. We believe a phasein that commences so soon after 

publication of the final rule presents a 

hardship for these manufacturers. 

Accordingly, these manufacturers need 

only assure that their vehicles comply 

with today’s requirements by September 

1, 2007.

As noted in the NPRM, final-stage 

manufacturers have no control over the 

vehicles that the previous-stage 

manufacturer decides to modify to meet 

the phase-in requirements. Accordingly, 

the final-stage manufacturer may have 

little or no choice in purchasing an 

incomplete vehicle that meets the 

requirements of the proposed rule. 

While alterers have more control, since 

they are only purchasing completed 

vehicles, they may have limited control 

over purchasing completed, certified 

vehicles in a manner that would allow 

them to meet the phase-in requirements. 

The final-stage manufacturers and 

alterers most likely to be affected by 

today’s rule are those who manufacture 

conversion vans. Removal and 

replacement of existing seats is one of 

the most common modifications of these 

vehicles. Thus, the existence in the 

market of vehicles certified to today’s 

requirement is largely irrelevant since 

the seats equipped with the required 

belts are likely to be removed as part of 

the conversion. If an alterer removes a 

seat supplied by the original vehicle 

manufacturer, the alterer must replace it 

with a seat equipped with a Type 2 belt. 

We do not believe it is unreasonable to 

provide final-stage manufacturers and 

alterers with the maximum permissible 

time to locate seats and seat belt 

assemblies that comply with today’s 

requirements. Accordingly, all multistage and altered vehicles manufactured 

on or after September 1, 2007 must be 

certified as complying with the new 

requirements. We have also decided to 

exclude small volume manufacturers 

(i.e., manufacturers of less than 5,000 

vehicles per year produced for the U.S. 

market) from the phase-in because of 

their small size. 

As proposed, we have decided to 

allow manufacturers of two or fewer 

carlines to opt out of the first year of the 

phase-in as long as 100% of their 

vehicles are certified as complying with 

the new requirements during the second 

year of the phase-in. NHTSA notes that, 

unlike the advanced air bag or tire 

pressure monitor system rulemakings, 

in which the technologies used to 

comply with the standard are relatively 

new, the technologies for lap/shoulder 

belts are well established. Accordingly, 

these manufacturers are unlikely to face 

the supply-and-demand problems in 

this rulemaking anticipated in the 

advanced air bag or tire pressure 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70911

monitor system rulemakings. For this 

reason, NHTSA has decided against 

allowing these manufacturers to claim 

advanced credits for that second year. 

We believe it is unlikely that such 

credits would be needed. 

The regulatory text addressing the 

phase-in reporting requirements gathers 

together the phase-in requirements for 

all safety standards being phased-in and 

places them in a single part of the Code 

of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Part 585. 

This will allow people henceforth to 

look to a single source for all reporting 

requirements associated with phase-ins. 

VII. Other Issues 

In the NPRM, we sought comment on 

three issues unrelated to the adoption of 

a Type 2 belt requirement. We asked for 

comment because these three areas are 

ones which have been raised with the 

agency. Dependent on the public’s 

response, we could choose to initiate 

rulemaking. 

The first area of interest was the 

comfort and convenience test 

procedures for rear designated seating 

positions. No commenters saw any need 

to revise the existing requirements for 

comfort and convenience. While some 

commenters believed the existing 

requirements were sufficient, others 

argued that market forces would dictate 

comfort. Based on the comments, we see 

no need to further address comfort and 

convenience issues at this time. 

Second, NHTSA sought information 

on seat belt fit studies conducted on rear 

seat occupants of varying size and 

stature and the results of any dynamic 

testing of any adjustable seat belt 

anchorages at different anchorage 

adjustments. We requested this 

information to determine the 

appropriateness of requiring adjustable 

anchorages for rear lap/shoulder belts. 

The Alliance commented that, over the 

past several years, it has been involved 

in a technical working group to develop 

voluntary best practices on seat belt fit. 

Transport Canada has also been 

involved in the working group. While 

the working group has been 

concentrating on front seats, Transport 

Canada has asked that it also work 

toward the development of criteria for 

the rear seat. No one offered any studies 

or data reflecting seat belt fit or the 

performance of adjustable seat belt 

anchorages in dynamic crash tests, 

although SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. argued 

for the adoption of adjustable upper 

anchorages in rear seats. NHTSA, 

however, has been conducting its own 

research on safety belt fit in response to 

section 3(b)(2) of Anton’s Law. Section 

3(b)(2) requires NHTSA to consider 

whether to establish performance 

requirements for seat belt fit when used 

with booster seats and other belt 

guidance devices. The results of this 

research could lead the agency to 

pursue rulemaking in this area in the 

future. 

Our final area of interest was whether 

there was a need to extend the frontal 

impact crash test requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208 to the rear seating 

positions. The Alliance, RVIA and Ford 

all opposed extending the dynamic 

crash test requirements, arguing that it 

is ‘‘universally known’’ that the rear seat 

is the safest seating location in a 

vehicle. Syson-Hille, Bidez and 

Associates, and SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 

all advocated for the adoption of 

requirements that would assess the 

injury potential of occupants of all ages 

and sizes in a dynamic environment. 

While dynamic testing in the rear seat 

is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, 

we note that we have two research 

programs that involve dynamic crash 

testing with rear seat occupants. The 

agency is running various types of child 

restraint systems in its frontal New Car 

Assessment Program (NCAP) tests. 

Results from those tests are being 

analyzed to determine whether such 

testing would provide meaningful 

consumer information. The second 

research program has focused on 

studying rear integrated seat 

performance in a dynamic crash test 

environment. This research has been 

expanded to evaluate and compare the 

performance of non-integrated seat belts 

and rear outboard seats for different 

sized occupants. Once this research 

program is completed, we expect to be 

in a better position to evaluate the need 

to further upgrade the rear seat belt 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208. 

NADA asked that the preamble to this 

rule discuss whether the agency intends 

to promote retrofit shoulder belt kits for 

existing vehicles and whether we intend 

to commence rulemaking to require 

LATCH systems for rear inboard seats. 

We do not intend to promote retrofit 

shoulder belt kits because we do not 

believe there is sufficient demand for 

such kits. Manufacturers are, of course, 

free to offer such kits if they desire. 

When first amending FMVSS No. 208 to 

require Type 2 belts in the rear outboard 

seating positions, the agency did 

actively promote retrofit kits. However, 

we discovered that consumer demand 

was exceptionally low. We have been 

told by at least one manufacturer that it 

ended up with several hundred 

unwanted kits. Based on that 

experience, we see no value in 

promoting such kits again. Additionally, 

most passenger cars and approximately 

half of the LTV fleet already have Type 

2 belts at the rear inboard designated 

seating position. Accordingly, the need 

for such kits is less now than it was in 

the early 1990s when the original rear 

lap/shoulder belt provisions were 

adopted. 

VIII. Costs and Benefits Associated 

With the Final Rule 

As noted earlier in this document, we 

anticipate that today’s rule will result in 

5 to 16 fewer fatalities and 111 to 202 

fewer injuries (AIS 2–5) per year in 

passenger cars and 5 to 17 fewer 

fatalities and 134 to 293 fewer injuries 

(AIS 2–5) per year in LTVs. The reason 

for providing a range of numbers is that 

the lower numbers reflect anticipated 

benefits if the addition of a shoulder 

belt has no impact on increased belt use, 

while the higher numbers assume a 10 

percent increase in belt use due to the 

presence of a shoulder belt.

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED LIVES SAVED BY LAP/SHOULDER BELT AT REAR INBOARD SEATING POSITION

Incremental 

benefits of lap/

shoulder belt 

compared to 

lap belt at

current belt 

use rate 

Incremental 

benefits of lap/

shoulder belt 

compared to 

lap belt with 

10% increase 

in belt use 

Passenger Cars ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 16

Light Trucks ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 17

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 10 33

70912 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

9Analysis of Crashes Involving 15-Passenger 

Vans, NHTSA Technical Report, DOT HS 809 735, 

May 2004.

10While we recognize that the value of human 

life cannot be measured in absolute terms, this 

amount represents a constant value needed to 

conduct a mathematical analysis.

While no specific benefits have been 

estimated for 12- and 15-passenger vans, 

safety benefits are expected given that 

belt use is critical in these types of 

vehicles, particularly in rollover 

crashes. At 14%, restraint use among 

fatally injured occupants in single 

vehicle crashes among all vehicles with 

a GVWR of 10,000 or less is the lowest 

in 15-passenger vans. Restraint use in 

these crashes in passenger cars is 30%; 

restraint use in sport utility vehicles is 

25%; restraint use in other vans is 26%; 

and restraint use in pickups is 18%. An 

unrestrained occupant in a 15-passenger 

van is about four times as likely to be 

ejected from the van as is a properly 

restrained occupant.9

The total cost of complying with 

today’s rule will vary depending on how 

manufacturers choose to design belts 

that cannot be attached to existing 

vehicle structures without some 

modification. Today’s rule permits two 

options for removable and folding seats, 

as well as for swivel seats and seats 

located adjacent to an aisle. If 

manufacturers choose to comply with 

today’s requirements using integrated 

seat belt designs, we estimate that the 

associated cost of compliance for the 

passenger car fleet will be 

approximately $40.64 million. For the 

LTV fleet that cost is estimated at 

$199.21 million. If manufacturers 

choose to comply with today’s 

requirements using detachable seat belt 

designs, we estimate the associated cost 

of compliance for the passenger car fleet 

will drop to $36.12 million, with an 

associated cost for the LTV fleet of 

$142.73 million. It is likely that 

manufacturers will choose between the 

two options depending on vehicle 

characteristics and perceived customer 

desires. Thus, the anticipated total cost 

of the rule would fall somewhere 

between $178.85 million and $239.86 

million (in year 2000 economics). 

Assessing the cost of today’s rule in 

terms of cost per equivalent life saved 

provides an indication of the cost 

associated with improving the entire 

fleet of vehicles to reduce the risk of 

injury or death to those individuals 

involved in a crash where the lack of a 

lap shoulder belt in the inboard rear 

seating positions would otherwise lead 

to injury or death. 

Assuming all manufacturers choose to 

meet the requirements of today’s rule 

using traditional belt designs where 

possible and integrated seat belts where 

needed, the cost of the rule per 

equivalent life saved for passenger cars 

discounted at 3% and 7%, is $1.57 

million and $1.92 million, respectively, 

while the discounted cost for LTVs is 

$4.99 million and $6.36 million 

respectively. 

Assuming, on the other hand, that all 

manufacturers use detachable belts 

rather than integrated belts, the cost per 

equivalent life saved drops. For 

passenger cars the cost per equivalent 

life saved is $1.40 million at a 3% 

discount rate and $1.7 million at a 7% 

discount rate. For LTVs the respective 

numbers are $3.58 million and $4.56 

million per equivalent life saved. 

We have also conducted a benefit-cost 

analysis to determine whether the cost 

of today’s rule outweighs the associated 

benefit. In terms of assessing overall 

benefit over cost, a positive number 

indicates that the benefits outweigh the 

associated cost, while a negative 

number indicates that the requirement 

will cost more than the associated 

benefit. In order to conduct a cost 

benefit analysis, we took the equivalent 

lives saved and multiplied it by a 

generic value of life, in this instance 

$3.5 million.10 From the product of 

these two figures, we then subtract the 

cost of today’s rule. Thus, for passenger 

cars, the net benefit associated for 

today’s rule is $49.88 and $33.65 

million, discounted at 3% and 7%, 

respectively, if all manufacturers use 

integrated belts where needed. The 

benefit for passenger cars if detachable 

belts are used is somewhat higher at 

$54.38 and $38.15 million, discounted 

at 3% and 7%, respectively. For the 

LTV fleet, the benefit associated with 

today’s rule is substantially smaller. If 

only integrated belts are used where 

traditional belts systems are impractical, 

the benefits associated with today’s rule 

never exceed the associated cost for the 

LTV fleet, at ¥$59.47 million (3% 

discount), and ¥$89.64 million (7% 

discount). Using detachable belts where 

needed results in a smaller disbenefit 

with a 3% discount value of $3.27 

million and a 7% discount value of 

$33.44 million.

IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking action under Executive 

Order 12866 and the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. This rulemaking is 

economically significant. Accordingly, 

the Office of Management and Budget 

has reviewed this rulemaking document 

under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning 

and Review.’’ The rulemaking action 

has also been determined to be 

significant under the Department’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. The 

benefits and costs associated with 

today’s rule have been briefly discussed 

earlier in this document. For a more 

detailed analysis, please refer to section 

VII of this notice and the final economic 

analysis supporting today’s final rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We have considered the effects of this 

rulemaking action under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 

NHTSA has determined that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The vast majority of affected 

motor vehicle manufacturers are not 

small businesses. Small organizations 

and small governmental units are not 

significantly affected by the final rule 

since the potential cost impacts 

associated with it should only slightly 

increase the price of new motor 

vehicles. A more complete analysis of 

the impact of today’s rule on small 

businesses, organizations, and 

governmental units may be found in the 

final economic analysis. 

C. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this amendment 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that it will not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

The agency has analyzed this 

rulemaking in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132 and has 

determined that it does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The final rule has no substantial effect 

on the States, or on the current FederalState relationship, or on the current 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various local 

officials. The final rule is not intended 

to preempt state tort civil actions, 

except to the extent that the agency has 

specifically determined that detachable 

Type 2 belts meeting the requirements 

of this rule are permissible for vehicle 

seats specifically permitted to be 

equipped with detachable Type 2 belts. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70913

11 Voluntary consensus standards are technical 

standards developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. Technical standards 

are defined by the NTTAA as ‘‘performance-based 

or design-specific technical specifications and 

related management systems practices.’’ They 

pertain to ‘‘products and processes, such as size, 

strength, or technical performance of a product, 

process or material.’’

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 results in a value of $109 

million in year 2000 economics. The 

final rule requires the expenditure of 

resources above and beyond $109 

million annually. NHTSA has explored 

various options based on the response to 

the public comments. We have 

determined that the cost associated with 

requiring Type 2 belts that integrated 

into the seat are unreasonably expensive 

and that the safety need addressed by 

this rulemaking can be more 

inexpensively achieved by permitting 

limited detachability of the Type 2 belts 

for certain seat designs. 

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

The final rule does not have any 

retroactive effect. Under section 49 

U.S.C. 30103, 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. 30161 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. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under 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. This rule contains a collection 

of information because of the phase-in 

reporting requirements. The purpose of 

the reporting requirements is to aid 

NHTSA in determining whether a 

manufacturer has complied with the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208 during 

the phase-in of those requirements. 

There is no burden to the general 

public. 

We have submitted a request for OMB 

clearance of the collection of 

information required under today’s final 

rule. These requirements and our 

estimates of the burden to vehicle 

manufacturers are as follows: 

• NHTSA estimates there are 21 

manufacturers of passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, and buses having a GVWR of 

4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. 

• NHTSA estimates that the total 

annual reporting and recordkeeping 

burden resulting from the collection of 

information is 1,260 hours. 

• NHTSA estimates that the total 

annual cost burden, in U.S. dollars, will 

be $0.00. No additional resources will 

be expended by vehicle manufacturers 

to gather annual production information 

because they already compile this data 

for their own use. 

Organizations and individuals that 

wish to submit comments on the 

information collection requirements 

should direct them within 30 days to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

D.C. 20503; Attention Desk Officer for 

NHTSA. Please fax the comments to: 

(202) 395–6974. 

H. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045 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. 

As noted earlier, this rulemaking is 

economically significant. Additionally, 

it is expected to have a disproportionate 

effect on children, since children are 

most likely to sit in the rear seat. 

However, the impact of this rulemaking 

on children will be beneficial instead of 

detrimental. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to 

evaluate and use existing voluntary 

consensus standards 11 in its regulatory 

activities unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., 

the statutory provisions regarding 

NHTSA’s vehicle safety authority) or 

otherwise impractical. In meeting that 

requirement, we are required to consult 

with voluntary, private sector, 

consensus standards bodies. Examples 

of organizations generally regarded as 

voluntary consensus standards bodies 

include the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM), the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 

and the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use 

available and potentially applicable 

voluntary consensus standards, we are 

required by the Act to provide Congress, 

through OMB, an explanation of the 

reasons for not using such standards. 

NHTSA has searched the voluntary 

consensus standards generally 

applicable to the manufacture of motor 

vehicles and is unaware of any 

standards relevant to this rule. No 

comments were received indicating that 

there were applicable standards that the 

agency failed to address.

J. Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Today’s rule has been written 

with that directive in mind, although 

FMVSS No. 208, in general, is a 

complicated regulation. We note that 

some of the requirements adopted today 

are technical in nature. As such, they 

may require some understanding of 

technical terminology. We expect those 

parties directly affected by today’s rule, 

i.e., vehicle manufacturers, to be 

familiar with such terminology. 

K. 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. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as 

follows:

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571, 

585, 586, 589, 590, 596 and 597

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Tires.

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 of 

title 49 continues to read as follows:

70914 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, 30166 delegation of authority at 49 

CFR 1.50.

■ 2. Section 571.201 is amended by 

revising S6.1.6.2 to read as follows:

§ 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant 

protection in interior impact.

* * * * *

S6.1.6.2 A vehicle produced by 

more than one manufacturer must be 

attributed to any one of the vehicle’s 

manufacturers specified by an express 

written contract, reported to the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration under 49 CFR Part 585, 

between the manufacturer so specified 

and the manufacturer to which the 

vehicle would otherwise be attributed 

under S6.1.6.1.

* * * * *

■ 3. Section 571.208 is amended by 

adding S4.1.5.5, S4.1.5.5.1, S4.1.5.5.2, 

S4.2.7, S4.2.7.1 through S4.2.7.6, S4.4.5, 

S4.4.5.1, S4.4.5.2, S4.5.5, and S4.5.5.1 

through S4.5.5.4 as follows:

§ 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant 

crash protection.

* * * * *

S4.1.5.5 Passenger cars 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2007. 

S4.1.5.5.1 Except as provided in 

S4.1.5.5.2, each passenger car shall have 

a Type 2 seat belt assembly that 

conforms to Standard No. 209 and to 

S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard at each 

rear designated seating position, except 

that side-facing designated seating 

positions shall have a Type 1 or Type 

2 seat belt assembly that conforms to 

Standard No. 209 and to S7.1 and S7.2 

of this standard. 

S4.1.5.5.2 Any inboard designated 

seating position on a seat for which the 

entire seat back can be folded (including 

the head restraints and any other part of 

the vehicle attached to the seat back) 

such that no part of the seat back 

extends above a horizontal plane 

located 250 mm above the highest SRP 

located on the seat may meet the 

requirements of S4.1.5.5.1 by use of a 

belt incorporating a release mechanism 

that detaches both the lap and shoulder 

portion at either the upper or lower 

anchorage point, but not both. The 

means of detachment shall be a key or 

key-like object.

* * * * *

S4.2.7 Rear seating positions in 

trucks, and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2007 with a GVWR of 

10,000 lbs. (4,536 kg) or less.

S4.2.7.1 Except as provided in 

S4.2.7.2, S4.2.7.3, S4.2.7.4, S4.2.7.5, and 

S4.2.7.6, each truck and each 

multipurpose passenger vehicle, other 

than a motor home, a walk-in van-type 

truck, or a vehicle designed to be sold 

exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service 

with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. (4,536 kg) 

or less, or a vehicle carrying chassismount camper with a gross vehicle 

weight rating of 8,500–10,000 lbs. 

(3,855–4,536 kg), shall be equipped with 

a Type 2 seat belt assembly at every rear 

designated seating position other than a 

side-facing position, except that Type 2 

seat belt assemblies installed in 

compliance with this requirement shall 

conform to Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 

571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this 

standard. If a Type 2 seat belt assembly 

installed in conformity to this 

requirement incorporates any webbing 

tension-relieving device, the vehicle 

owner’s manual shall include the 

information specified in S7.4.2(b) of this 

standard for the tension relieving 

device, and the vehicle shall conform to 

S7.4.2(c) of this standard. Side-facing 

designated seating positions shall be 

equipped, at the manufacturer’s option, 

with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt 

assembly that conforms with S7.1 and 

S7.2 of this standard. 

S4.2.7.2 Any rear designated seating 

position with a seat that can be adjusted 

to be forward-or rear-facing and to face 

some other direction shall either: 

(a) Meet the requirements of S4.2.7.1 

with the seat in any position in which 

it can be occupied while the vehicle is 

in motion; or

(b) When the seat is in its forwardfacing and/or rear-facing position or 

within ± 30 degrees of either position, 

have a Type 2 seat belt assembly with 

an upper torso restraint that conforms to 

S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard and that 

adjusts by means of an emergency 

locking retractor that conforms to 

Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209), 

which upper torso restraint may be 

detachable at either the buckle or the 

upper anchorage, but not both, and, 

when the seat is in any other position 

in which it can be occupied while the 

vehicle is in motion, have a Type 1 seat 

belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 

seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 

and S7.2 of this standard. 

S4.2.7.3 Any rear designated seating 

position on a readily removable seat 

(i.e., a seat designed to be easily 

removed and replaced by means 

installed by the manufacturer for that 

purpose) may meet the requirements of 

S4.2.7.1 by use of a belt incorporating a 

release mechanism that detaches both 

the lap and shoulder portion at either 

the upper or lower anchorage point, but 

not both. The means of detachment 

shall be a key or key-like object. 

S4.2.7.4 Any inboard designated 

seating position on a seat for which the 

entire seat back can be folded such that 

no part of the seat back extends above 

a horizontal plane located 250 mm 

above the highest SRP located on the 

seat may meet the requirements of 

S4.2.7.1 by use of a belt incorporating a 

release mechanism that detaches both 

the lap and shoulder portion at either 

the upper or lower anchorage point, but 

not both. The means of detachment 

shall be a key or key-like object. 

S4.2.7.5 Any rear designated seating 

position adjacent to a walkway located 

between the seat and the side of the 

vehicle, which walkway is designed to 

allow access to more rearward 

designated seating positions may meet 

the requirements of S4.2.7.1 by use of a 

belt incorporating a release mechanism 

that detaches both the lap and shoulder 

portion at either the upper or lower 

anchorage point, but not both. The 

means of detachment shall be a key or 

key-like object. 

S4.2.7.6 Any rear side-facing 

designated seating position shall have a 

Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that 

conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 of this 

standard.

* * * * *

S4.4.5 Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 

lbs. (4,536 kg) or less manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2007.

S4.4.5.1 Except as provided in 

S4.4.5.2, S4.4.5.3, S4.4.5.4, S4.4.5.5 and 

S4.4.5.6 each bus with a gross vehicle 

weight rating of 10,000 lbs. (4,536 kg) or 

less shall be equipped with a Type 2 

seat belt assembly at every designated 

seating position other than a side-facing 

position. Type 2 seat belt assemblies 

installed in compliance with this 

requirement shall conform to Standard 

No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) and with S7.1 

and S7.2 of this standard. If a Type 2 

seat belt assembly installed in 

compliance with this requirement 

incorporates a webbing tension relieving 

device, the vehicle owner’s manual 

shall include the information specified 

in S7.3.1(b) of this standard for the 

tension relieving device, and the vehicle 

shall conform to S7.4.2(c) of this 

standard. Side-facing designated seating 

positions shall be equipped, at the 

manufacturer’s option, with a Type 1 or 

Type 2 seat belt assembly. 

S4.4.5.2 Any rear designated seating 

position with a seat that can be adjusted 

to be forward- or rear-facing and to face 

some other direction shall either: 

(a) Meet the requirements of S4.4.5.1 

with the seat in any position in which 

it can be occupied while the vehicle is 

in motion; or 

(b) (1) When the seat is in its forwardfacing and/or rear-facing position, or 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70915

within ± 30 degrees of either position, 

have a Type 2 seat belt assembly with 

an upper torso restraint that 

(i) Conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 of this 

standard, 

(ii) Adjusts by means of an emergency 

locking retractor conforming to 

Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209), and 

(iii) May be detachable at the buckle 

or upper anchorage, but not both, and 

(2) When the seat is in any position 

in which it can be occupied while the 

vehicle is in motion, have a Type 1 seat 

belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 

seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 

and S7.2 of this standard. 

S4.4.5.3 Any rear designated seating 

position on a readily removable seat 

(that is, a seat designed to be easily 

removed and replaced by means 

installed by the manufacturer for that 

purpose) may meet the requirements of 

S4.4.5.1 by use of a belt incorporating a 

release mechanism that detaches both 

the lap and shoulder portion at either 

the upper or lower anchorage point, but 

not both. The means of detachment 

shall be a key or key-like object. 

S4.4.5.4 Any inboard designated 

seating position on a seat for which the 

entire seat back can be folded such that 

no part of the seat back extends above 

a horizontal plane located 250 mm 

above the highest SRP located on the 

seat may meet the requirements of 

S4.4.5.1 by use of a belt incorporating a 

release mechanism that detaches both 

the lap and shoulder portion at either 

the upper or lower anchorage point, but 

not both. The means of detachment 

shall be a key or key-like object. 

S4.4.5.5 Any rear designated seating 

position adjacent to a walkway located 

between the seat, which walkway is 

designed to allow access to more 

rearward designated seating positions, 

and not adjacent to the side of the 

vehicle may meet the requirements of 

S4.4.5.1 by use of a belt incorporating a 

release mechanism that detaches both 

the lap and shoulder portion at either 

the upper or lower anchorage point, but 

not both. The means of detachment 

shall be a key or key-like object. 

S4.4.5.6 Any rear side-facing 

designated seating position shall have a 

Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that 

conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 of this 

standard.

* * * * *

S4.5.5 Rear seat belt requirements 

for passenger cars and for trucks, buses, 

and multipurpose passenger vehicles 

with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) 

or less.

S4.5.5.1 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2005 and before 

September 1, 2007.

(a) For vehicles manufactured for sale 

in the United States on or after 

September 1, 2005, and before 

September 1, 2007, a percentage of the 

manufacturer’s production as specified 

in S4.5.5.2, shall meet the requirements 

specified in either S4.1.5.5 for 

complying passenger cars, S4.2.7 for 

complying trucks and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, or S4.4.5 for 

complying buses. 

(b) A manufacturer that sells two or 

fewer carlines, as that term is defined at 

49 CFR 583.4, in the United States may, 

at the option of the manufacturer, meet 

the requirements of this paragraph, 

instead of paragraph (a) of this section. 

Each vehicle manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2006, and before 

September 1, 2007, shall meet the 

requirements specified in S4.1.5.5 for 

complying passenger cars, S4.2.7 for 

complying trucks & multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, and S4.4.5 for 

complying buses. Credits for vehicles 

manufactured before September 1, 2006 

are not to be applied to the requirements 

of this paragraph. 

(c) Vehicles that are manufactured in 

two or more stages or that are altered 

(within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) 

after having previously been certified in 

accordance with part 567 of this chapter 

are not subject to the requirements of 

S4.5.5.1.

(d) Vehicles that are manufactured by 

a manufacturer that produces fewer than 

5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the 

United States are not subject to the 

requirements of S4.5.5.1. 

S4.5.5.2 Phase-in schedule.

(a) Vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2005, and before 

September 1, 2006. Subject to 

S4.5.5.3(a), for vehicles manufactured 

on or after September 1, 2005, and 

before September 1, 2006, the amount of 

vehicles complying with S4.1.5.5 for 

complying passenger cars, S4.2.7 for 

complying trucks and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, or S4.4.5 for 

complying buses shall be not less than 

50 percent of: 

(1) If the manufacturer has 

manufactured vehicles for sale in the 

United States during both of the two 

production years immediately prior to 

September 1, 2005, the manufacturer’s 

average annual production of vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2003, and before September 1, 2006, or 

(2) The manufacturer’s production on 

or after September 1, 2005, and before 

September 1, 2006. 

(b) Vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2006, and before 

September 1, 2007. Subject to 

S4.5.5.3(b), for vehicles manufactured 

on or after September 1, 2006, and 

before September 1, 2007, the amount of 

vehicles complying with S4.1.5.5 for 

complying passenger cars, S4.2.7 for 

complying trucks and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, or S4.4.5 for 

complying buses shall be not less than 

80 percent of: 

(1) If the manufacturer has 

manufactured vehicles for sale in the 

United States during both of the two 

production years immediately prior to 

September 1, 2006, the manufacturer’s 

average annual production of vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2004, and before September 1, 2007, or 

(2) The manufacturer’s production on 

or after September 1, 2006, and before 

September 1, 2007. 

S4.5.5.3 Calculation of complying 

vehicles.

(a) For the purposes of complying 

with S4.5.5.2(a), a manufacturer may 

count a vehicle if it is manufactured on 

or after February 7, 2005, but before 

September 1, 2006. 

(b) For the purposes of complying 

with S4.5.5.2(b), a manufacturer may 

count a vehicle if it: 

(1) Is manufactured on or after 

February 7, 2005, but before September 

1, 2007, and 

(2) Is not counted toward compliance 

with S4.5.5.2(a). 

S4.5.5.4 Vehicles produced by more 

than one manufacturer.

(a) For the purpose of calculating 

average annual production of vehicles 

for each manufacturer and the number 

of vehicles manufactured by each 

manufacturer under S4.5.5.2, a vehicle 

produced by more than one 

manufacturer shall be attributed to a 

single manufacturer as follows, subject 

to paragraph (b) of this section. 

(1) A vehicle that is imported shall be 

attributed to the importer. 

(2) A vehicle manufactured in the 

United States by more than one 

manufacturer, one of which also 

markets the vehicle, shall be attributed 

to the manufacturer that markets the 

vehicle. 

(b) A vehicle produced by more than 

one manufacturer shall be attributed to 

any one of the vehicle’s manufacturers 

specified by an express written contract, 

reported to the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration under 49 

CFR part 585, between the manufacturer 

so specified and the manufacturer to 

which the vehicle would otherwise be 

attributed under paragraph (a) of this 

section.

■ 4. Section 571.225 is amended by 

revising S13.1.2(c), S14.2.2, and S16.3.2 

to read as follows:

70916 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 571.225 Standard No. 225; Child restraint 

anchorage systems.

* * * * *

S13.1.2 * * *

(c) A vehicle produced by more than 

one manufacturer must be attributed to 

any one of the vehicle’s manufacturers 

specified by an express written contract, 

reported to the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration under 49 

CFR part 585, between the manufacturer 

so specified and the manufacturer to 

which the vehicle would otherwise be 

attributed under S13.1.2(a) or (b).

* * * * *

S14.2.2 A vehicle produced by more 

than one manufacturer must be 

attributed to any one of the vehicle’s 

manufacturers specified by an express 

written contract, reported to the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration under 49 CFR part 585, 

between the manufacturer so specified 

and the manufacturer to which the 

vehicle would otherwise be attributed 

under S14.2.1.

* * * * *

S16.3.2 A vehicle produced by more 

than one manufacturer must be 

attributed to any one of the vehicle’s 

manufacturers specified by an express 

written contract, reported to the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration under 49 CFR part 585, 

between the manufacturer so specified 

and the manufacturer to which the 

vehicle would otherwise be attributed 

under S16.3.1.

* * * * *

PART 585—PHASE–IN REPORTING 

REQUIREMENTS

Subpart A—General

Sec. 

585.1 Definitions. 

585.2 Phase-in reports. 

585.3 Vehicles produced by more than one 

manufacturer. 

585.4 Petitions to extend period to file 

report.

Subpart B—Advanced Air Bag Phase-in 

Reporting Requirements 

585.11 Scope. 

585.12 Purpose. 

585.13 Applicability. 

585.14 Definitions. 

585.15 Reporting requirements. 

585.16 Records.

Subpart C—Rear Inboard Lap/Shoulder Belt 

Phase-in Reporting Requirements 

585.21 Scope. 

585.22 Purpose. 

585.23 Applicability. 

585.24 Reporting requirements. 

585.25 Records.

Subpart D—Child Restraint Anchorage 

System Phase-in Reporting Requirements 

585.31 Scope. 

585.32 Purpose. 

585.33 Applicability. 

585.34 Response to inquiries. 

585.35 Reporting requirements. 

585.36 Records.

Subpart E—Fuel System Integrity Phase-in 

Reporting Requirements 

585.41 Scope. 

585.42 Purpose. 

585.43 Applicability. 

585.44 Response to inquiries. 

585.45 Reporting requirements. 

585.46 Records.

Subpart F—Tires for Motor Vehicles with a 

GVWR of 10,000 Pounds or Less Phase-in 

Reporting Requirements 

585.51 Scope. 

585.52 Purpose. 

585.53 Applicability. 

585.54 Response to inquiries. 

585.55 Reporting requirements. 

585.56 Records.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50.

■ 5. Part 585 is revised to read as follows:

Subpart A—General

§ 585.1 Definitions. 

(a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 

30102 are used in accordance with their 

statutory meaning. 

(b) The terms bus, gross vehicle 

weight rating or GVWR, motor vehicle, 

multipurpose passenger vehicle, 

passenger car, and truck are used as 

defined in § 571.3 of this chapter. 

(c) Production year means the 12-

month period between September 1 of 

one year and August 31 of the following 

year, inclusive, unless otherwise 

specified.

§ 585.2 Phase-in reports. 

Each report submitted to NHTSA 

under this part shall: 

(a) Identify the manufacturer; 

(b) State the full name, title, and 

address of the official responsible for 

preparing the report; 

(c) Identify the production year being 

reported on; 

(d) Contain a statement regarding 

whether or not the manufacturer 

complied with the requirements of the 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard 

addressed by the report, for the period 

covered by the report, and the basis for 

that statement; 

(e) Be written in the English language; 

and 

(f) Be submitted to: Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590.

§ 585.3 Vehicles produced by more than 

one manufacturer. 

Each manufacturer whose reporting of 

information is affected by one or more 

of the express written contracts 

permitted by a Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard subject to the reporting 

requirements of this part shall: 

(a) Report the existence of each 

contract, including the names of all 

parties to the contract and explain how 

the contract affects the report being 

submitted. 

(b) Report the number of vehicles 

covered by each contract in each 

production year.

§ 585.4 Petitions to extend period to file 

report. 

A petition for extension of the time to 

submit a report required under this part 

shall be received not later than 15 days 

before the report is due. The petition 

shall be submitted to: Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. The filing 

of a petition does not automatically 

extend the time for filing a report. A 

petition will be granted only if the 

petitioner shows good cause for the 

extension, and if the extension is 

consistent with the public interest.

Subpart B—Advanced Air Bag Phasein Reporting Requirements

§ 585.11 Scope. 

This subpart establishes requirements 

for manufacturers of passenger cars and 

trucks, buses, and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 

3,855 kg or less and an unloaded vehicle 

weight of 2,495 kg or less to submit 

reports, and maintain records related to 

the reports, concerning the number and 

identification of such vehicles that are 

certified as complying with the 

advanced air bag requirements of 

Standard No. 208, Occupant crash 

protection (49 CFR 571.208).

§ 585.12 Purpose. 

The purpose of these reporting 

requirements is to aid the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

in determining whether a manufacturer 

has complied with the advanced air bag 

requirements of Standard No. 208 

during the phase-ins of those 

requirements.

§ 585.13 Applicability. 

This subpart applies to manufacturers 

of passenger cars and trucks, buses, and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 

GVWR of 3,855 kg or less and an 

unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg or 

less. However, this subpart does not 

apply to any manufacturers whose 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70917

production consists exclusively of walkin vans, vehicles designed to be sold 

exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service, 

vehicles manufactured in two or more 

stages, and vehicles that are altered after 

previously having been certified in 

accordance with part 567 of this 

chapter. In addition, this subpart does 

not apply to manufacturers whose 

production of motor vehicles for the 

United States market is less than 5,000 

vehicles in a production year.

§ 585.14 Definitions. 

For the purposes of this subpart, 

(a) Phase one of the advanced air bag 

requirements of Standard No. 208 refers 

to the requirements set forth in S14.1, 

S14.2, S14.5.1(a), S14.5.2, S15.1, S15.2, 

S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 

49 CFR 571.208. 

(b) Phase two of the advanced air bag 

reporting requirements of Standard No. 

208 refers to the requirements set forth 

in S14.3, S14.4, S14.5.1(b), S14.5.2, 

S15.1, S15.2, S17, S19, S21, S23, and 

S25 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard No. 208, 49 CFR 571.208. 

(c) Vehicles means passenger cars and 

trucks, buses, and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 

3,855 kg or less and an unloaded vehicle 

weight of 2,495 kg or less manufactured 

for sale in the United States whose 

production of motor vehicles for sale in 

the United States is equal to or greater 

than 5,000 vehicles in a production 

year, and does not mean walk-in vans, 

vehicles designed to be sold exclusively 

to the U.S. Postal Service, vehicles 

manufactured in two or more stages, 

and vehicles that are altered after 

previously having been certified in 

accordance with part 567 of this 

chapter.

§ 585.15 Reporting requirements. 

(a) Advanced credit phase-in 

reporting requirements. (1) Within 60 

days after the end of production years 

ending August 31, 2000, August 31, 

2001, August 31, 2002, and August 31, 

2003, each manufacturer choosing to 

certify vehicles manufactured during 

any of those production years as 

complying with phase one of the 

advanced air bag requirements of 

Standard No. 208 shall submit a report 

to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration providing the 

information specified in paragraph (c) of 

this section and in § 585.2 of this part. 

(2) Within 60 days after the end of the 

production year ending August 31, 

2007, each manufacturer choosing to 

certify vehicles manufactured during 

that production year as complying with 

phase two of the advanced air bag 

requirements of Standard No. 208 shall 

submit a report to the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration providing 

the information specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section and in § 585.2 of this 

part. 

(b) Phase-in reporting requirements.

(1) Within 60 days after the end of the 

production years ending August 31, 

2004, August 31, 2005, and August 31, 

2006, each manufacturer shall submit a 

report to the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration regarding its 

compliance with phase one of the 

advanced air bag requirements of 

Standard No. 208 for its vehicles 

produced in that production year. The 

report shall provide the information 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section 

and in § 585.2 of this part. Each report 

shall also specify the number of advance 

credit vehicles, if any, which are being 

applied to the production year being 

reported on. 

(2) Within 60 days after the end of 

production years ending August 31, 

2008, August 31, 2009, and August 31, 

2010, each manufacturer shall submit a 

report to the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration regarding its 

compliance with phase two of the 

advanced air bag requirements of 

Standard No. 208 for its vehicles 

produced in that production year. The 

report shall provide the information 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section 

and in § 585.2 of this part. Each report 

shall also specify the number of advance 

credit vehicles, if any, which are being 

applied to the production year being 

reported on.

(c) Advanced credit phase-in report 

content. (1) With respect to the reports 

identified in section 585.15(a)(1), each 

manufacturer shall report for the 

production year for which the report is 

filed the number of vehicles, by make 

and model year, that meet the 

applicable advanced air bag 

requirements of Standard No. 208, and 

to which advanced air bag requirements 

the vehicles are certified. 

(2) With respect to the report 

identified in section 585.15(a)(2), each 

manufacturer shall report the number of 

vehicles, by make and model year, that 

meet the applicable advanced air bag 

requirements of Standard No. 208, and 

to which the advanced air bag 

requirements the vehicles are certified. 

(d) Phase-in report content. (1) Basis 

for phase-in production requirements. 

For production years ending August 31, 

2003, August 31, 2004, August 31, 2005, 

August 31, 2007, August 31, 2008, and 

August 31, 2009, each manufacturer 

shall provide the number of vehicles 

manufactured in the current production 

year, or, at the manufacturer’s option, 

for the current production year and each 

of the prior two production years if the 

manufacturer has manufactured 

vehicles during both of the two 

production years prior to the year for 

which the report is being submitted. 

(2) Production of complying vehicles. 

Each manufacturer shall report for the 

production year for which the report is 

filed the number of vehicles, by make 

and model year, that meet the 

applicable advanced air bag 

requirements of Standard No. 208, and 

to which advanced air bag requirements 

the vehicles are certified.

§ 585.16 Records. 

Each manufacturer shall maintain 

records of the Vehicle Identification 

Number of each vehicle for which 

information is reported under 

§ 585.15(c)(1) and (d)(2) until December 

31, 2011.

Subpart C—Rear Inboard Lap/Shoulder 

Belt Phase-In Reporting Requirements

§ 585.21 Scope. 

This subpart establishes requirements 

for manufacturers of passenger cars and 

for trucks, buses, and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 

4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less to submit 

reports, and maintain records related to 

the reports, concerning the number and 

identification of such vehicles that are 

certified as complying with the Type 2 

seat belt requirements for rear seating 

positions of Standard No. 208, 

Occupant crash protection (49 CFR 

571.208).

§ 585.22 Purpose. 

The purpose of these reporting 

requirements is to assist the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

in determining whether a manufacturer 

has complied with the Type 2 seat belt 

requirements for rear seating positions 

of Standard No. 208.

§ 585.23 Applicability.

This subpart applies to manufacturers 

of passenger cars and trucks, buses, and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 

GVWR of 4,536 kg or less. However, this 

subpart does not apply to any 

manufacturers whose production 

consists exclusively of walk-in vans, 

vehicles designed to be sold exclusively 

to the U.S. Postal Service, vehicles 

manufactured in two or more stages, 

and vehicles that are altered after 

previously having been certified in 

accordance with part 567 of this 

chapter. In addition, this subpart does 

not apply to manufacturers whose 

worldwide production of motor vehicles 

is less than 5,000 vehicles in a 

production year.

70918 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 585.24 Reporting requirements. 

(a) Advanced credit phase-in 

reporting requirements. Within 60 days 

after the end of the production year 

ending August 31, 2005, each 

manufacturer choosing to certify 

vehicles manufactured during that 

production year as complying with the 

Type 2 seat belt for each rear designated 

seating position requirements of 

Standard No. 208 shall submit a report 

to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration providing the 

information specified in paragraph (c) of 

this section and in § 585.2 of this part. 

(b) Phase-in reporting requirements.

Within 60 days after the end of the 

production years ending August 31, 

2006, and August 31, 2007, each 

manufacturer shall submit a report to 

the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration regarding its compliance 

with the Type 2 seat belt for each rear 

designated seating position 

requirements of Standard No. 208 for its 

vehicles produced in that production 

year. The report shall provide the 

information specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section and in § 585.2 of this 

part. Each report shall also specify the 

number of advance credit vehicles, if 

any, which are being applied to the 

production year being reported on. 

(c) Advanced credit phase-in report 

content. With respect to the reports 

identified in section 585.24(a), each 

manufacturer shall report for the 

production year for which the report is 

filed the number of vehicles, by make 

and model year, that meet the 

applicable Type 2 seat belt for each rear 

designated seating position 

requirements of Standard No. 208. 

(d) Phase-in report content. (1) Basis 

for phase-in production requirements. 

For production years ending August 31, 

2006, and August 31, 2007, each 

manufacturer shall provide the number 

of vehicles manufactured in the current 

production year, or, at the 

manufacturer’s option, for the current 

production year and each of the prior 

two production years if the 

manufacturer has manufactured 

vehicles during each production year 

prior to the year for which the report is 

being submitted. 

(2) Production of complying vehicles. 

Each manufacturer shall report for the 

production year for which the report is 

filed the number of vehicles, by make 

and model year, that meet the 

applicable Type 2 seat belt for each rear 

designated seating position 

requirements of Standard No. 208.

§ 585.25 Records. 

Each manufacturer shall maintain 

records of the Vehicle Identification 

Number of each vehicle for which 

information is reported under 

§ 585.24(c) and (d)(2) until December 

31, 2008.

Subpart D—Child Restraint Anchorage 

System Phase-In Reporting 

Requirements

§ 585.31 Scope. 

This subpart established requirements 

for manufacturers of passenger cars and 

of trucks and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or 

less, and of buses with a GVWR of 4,536 

kg or less, to submit a report, and 

maintain records related to the report, 

concerning the number of such vehicles 

that meet the requirements of Standard 

No. 225, Child restraint anchorage 

systems (49 CFR 571.225).

§ 585.32 Purpose. 

The purpose of these reporting 

requirements is to assist the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

in determining whether a manufacturer 

has complied with Standard No. 225.

§ 585.33 Applicability. 

This subpart applies to manufacturers 

of passenger cars, and of trucks and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 

GVWR of 3,855 kg or less, and of buses 

with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less. 

However, this subpart does not apply to 

vehicles excluded by S5 of Standard No. 

225 from the requirements of the 

standard.

§ 585.34 Response to inquiries. 

At any time during the production 

years ending August 31, 2000, August 

31, 2001, August 31, 2002, and August 

31, 2005 each manufacturer shall, upon 

request from the Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, provide information 

identifying the vehicles (by make, 

model and vehicle identification 

number) that have been certified as 

complying with Standard No. 225. The 

manufacturer’s designation of a vehicle 

as a certified vehicle is irrevocable.

§ 585.35 Reporting requirements. 

(a) General reporting requirements.

Within 60 days after the end of the 

production years ending August 31, 

2000, August 31, 2001, and August 31, 

2002, each manufacturer shall submit a 

report to the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration concerning its 

compliance with the child restraint 

anchorage system requirements of 

Standard No. 225 for its passenger cars, 

trucks, buses, and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles produced in that 

year. The report shall provide the 

information specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section and in § 585.2 of this part. 

(b) Report content. (1) Basis for phasein production goals. Each manufacturer 

shall provide the number of passenger 

cars and trucks and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 

3,855 kg or less, and buses with a 

GVWR of 4,536 kg or less manufactured 

for sale in the United States for each of 

the three previous production years, or, 

at the manufacturer’s option, for the 

current production year. A new 

manufacturer that has not previously 

manufactured these vehicles for sale in 

the United States shall report the 

number of such vehicles manufactured 

during the current production year. 

(2) Production. (i) Each manufacturer 

shall report for the production year for 

which the report is filed, except for the 

production year ending August 31, 

2005: the number of passenger cars and 

trucks and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or 

less, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 

kg or less, that meet Standard No. 225. 

(ii) Each manufacturer shall report for 

the production year ending August 31, 

2005: the number of passenger cars and 

trucks and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or 

less, and buses with a GWVR of 4,536 

kg or less, that meet S6.3.1 and S9.4 of 

Standard No. 225.

§ 585.36 Records. 

Each manufacturer shall maintain 

records of the Vehicle Identification 

Number for each vehicle for which 

information is reported under 

§ 585.35(b)(2)(i) until December 31, 

2004. Each manufacturer shall maintain 

records of the Vehicle Identification 

Number for each vehicle for which 

information is reported under 

§ 585.35(b)(2)(ii) until December 31, 

2007.

Subpart E—Fuel System Integrity 

Phase-In Reporting Requirements

§ 585.41 Scope. 

This subpart establishes requirements 

for manufacturers of passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 

kg (10,000 lb) or less to respond to 

NHTSA inquiries, to submit reports, and 

to maintain records related to the 

reports, concerning the number of such 

vehicles that meet the upgraded 

requirements of Standard No. 301, Fuel 

systems integrity (49 CFR 571.301).

§ 585.42 Purpose.

The purpose of these requirements is 

to assist the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration in determining 

whether a manufacturer has complied 

with the upgraded requirements of 

Standard No. 301.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 70919

§ 585.43 Applicability. 

This subpart applies to manufacturers 

of passenger cars, multipurpose 

vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR 

of 4,536 kg or less.

§ 585.44 Response to inquiries. 

During the production years ending 

August 31, 2007, August 31, 2008, and 

August 31, 2009, each manufacturer 

shall, upon request from the Office of 

Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide 

information identifying the vehicles (by 

make, model, and vehicle identification 

number) that have been certified as 

complying with the requirements of 

S6.2(b) of Standard No. 301. The 

manufacturer’s designation of a vehicle 

as a certified vehicle is irrevocable.

§ 585.45 Reporting requirements. 

(a) General reporting requirements. 

Within 60 days after the end of the 

production years ending August 31, 

2007, August 31, 2008 and August 31, 

2009, each manufacturer shall submit a 

report to the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration concerning its 

compliance with S6.2(b) of Standard 

No. 301 for its passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, and buses with a GVWR of less 

than 4,536 kg produced in that year. 

Each report shall provide the 

information specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section and in section 585.2 of this 

part. 

(b) Report content. (1) Basis for 

statement of compliance. Each 

manufacturer shall provide the number 

of passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses 

with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less 

manufactured for sale in the United 

States for each of the three previous 

production years, or, at the 

manufacturer’s option, for the previous 

production year. A new manufacturer 

that has not previously manufactured 

these vehicles for sale in the United 

States must report the number of such 

vehicles manufactured during the 

current production year. 

(2) Production. Each manufacturer 

shall report for the production year for 

which the report is filed the number of 

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks, and buses with a 

GVWR of 4,536 kg or less that meet 

S6.2(b) or S6.3(b) of Standard No. 301.

§ 585.46 Records. 

Each manufacturer shall maintain 

records of the Vehicle Identification 

Number for each vehicle for which 

information is reported under 

§ 585.45(b)(2) until December 31, 2010.

Subpart F—Tires for Motor Vehicles 

with a GVWR of 10,000 Pounds or Less 

Phase-In Reporting Requirements

§ 585.51 Scope. 

This subpart establishes requirements 

for manufacturers of new pneumatic 

tires for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 

4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less to respond 

to NHTSA inquiries, to submit reports, 

and to maintain records related to the 

reports, concerning the number of such 

tires that meet the requirements of 

Standard No. 139, New pneumatic tires 

for light vehicles (49 CFR 571.139).

§ 585.52 Purpose. 

The purpose of these requirements is 

to assist the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration in determining 

whether a manufacturer has complied 

with the requirements of Standard No. 

139.

§ 585.53 Applicability. 

This subpart applies to manufacturers 

of tires for motor vehicles with a GVWR 

of 4,536 kg or less.

§ 585.54 Response to inquiries. 

Each manufacturer shall, upon 

request from the Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, provide information 

identifying the tires (by make, model, 

brand and tire identification number) 

that have been certified as complying 

with the requirements of Standard No. 

139. The manufacturer’s designation of 

a tire as a certified tire is irrevocable.

§ 585.55 Reporting requirements. 

(a) General reporting requirements.

Within 60 days after the end of the 

production years ending August 31, 

2006 and August 31, 2007, each 

manufacturer shall submit a report to 

the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration concerning its 

compliance with Standard No. 139 for 

its tires produced in that year for motor 

vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or 

less. Each report shall provide the 

information specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section and in section 585.2 of this 

part.

(b) Report content. (1) Basis for 

statement of compliance. Each 

manufacturer shall provide the number 

of tires for motor vehicles with a GVWR 

of 4,536 kg or less manufactured for sale 

in the United States for each of the three 

previous production years, or, at the 

manufacturer’s option, for the 

production year for which the report is 

filed. A new manufacturer that has not 

previously manufactured these tires for 

sale in the United States shall report the 

number of such tires manufactured 

during the current production year. 

(2) Production. Each manufacturer 

shall report for the production year for 

which the report is filed the number of 

new pneumatic tires for motor vehicles 

with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less that 

meet Standard No. 139.

§ 585.56 Records. 

Each manufacturer shall maintain 

records of the tire identification number 

for each vehicle for which information 

is reported under § 585.55(b)(2) until 

December 31, 2008.

PART 586—[REMOVED AND 

RESERVED]

■ 7. Part 586 is removed and the part is 

reserved.

PART 589—[REMOVED AND 

RESERVED]

■ 8. Part 589 is removed and the part is 

reserved.

PART 590—[REMOVED AND 

RESERVED]

■ 9. Part 590 is removed and the part is 

reserved.

PART 596—[REMOVED AND 

RESERVED]

■ 10. Part 596 is removed and the part is 

reserved.

PART 597—[REMOVED AND 

RESERVED]

■ 11. Part 597 is removed and the part is 

reserved.

Jeffrey W. Runge, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–26874 Filed 12–3–04; 3:59 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 041018283–4340–02; I.D. 

102204C]

RIN 0648–AS81

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) Provisions; 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Northeast (NE) Multispecies 

Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.