Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31883

1The date was later extended to September 1,

2004. 65 FR 46628.

2 Volkswagen also stated in its petition that it

supported the petition for reconsideration of the

final rule submitted by the Alliance of Automobile

Continued

Respondents: Business or other for

profit and non-profit.

Number of Respondents: 807.

Estimated Time Per Response: 30

minutes.

Total Annual Cost Burden: 0.

Total Annual Burden: 4031⁄2 hours.

Needs and Uses: The proposed

labeling requirements would serve to

educate consumers as to the capabilities

and limitations of their handsets thus

avoiding confusion resulting in delay in

responding to E911 calls.

Ordering Clauses

32. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7,

10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 308,

309(j), and 310 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,

154(i), 154(j), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208,

214, 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and 310, this

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

is adopted.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–14926 Filed 6–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–2001–9816]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Child Restraint Anchorage

Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: The Federal motor vehicle

safety standard on child restraint

anchorage systems requires vehicle

manufacturers to install child restraint

anchorage systems in passenger motor

vehicles. The standard specifies

‘‘marking and conspicuity’’

requirements for the lower bars of a

child restraint anchorage system to help

users locate and use the bars and to

inform or remind them that the

anchorage system is present. The

standard was amended to permit

manufacturers to meet these

requirements, for a limited period, by

installing at least one anchorage bar so

that it is visible, or by installing a

guidance fixture or one seat marking

feature that is visible to a person

installing a child restraint test fixture.

Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen of

America, Inc. (Volkswagen) petitioned

for reconsideration of the rule.

Volkswagen had been providing

guidance fixtures on an ‘‘as requested’’

basis, rather than providing them with

each new vehicle. The petitioner

requested NHTSA to defer the effective

date of the requirement for a guidance

fixture until the manufacturer could

obtain a supply of guidance fixtures

from its supplier. For the reasons

provided in this document, we have

denied the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

nonlegal issues: Mike Huntley, Office of

Crashworthiness Standards, Special

Vehicle and Systems Division

(telephone 202–366–0029).

For legal issues: Deirdre Fujita, Office

of the Chief Counsel (202–366–2992).

Both can be reached at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC

20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

NHTSA’s March 1999 Final Rule

On March 5, 1999, NHTSA published

a final rule establishing Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, ‘‘Child

Restraint Anchorage Systems’’ (49 CFR

571.225), to require motor vehicle

manufacturers to install child restraint

anchorage systems that are standardized

and independent of the vehicle seat

belts (64 FR 10786) (Docket No. 98–

3390, notice 2). Each new system has

two lower anchorages and one tether

anchorage. Each lower anchorage is a

rigid round rod or bar onto which the

connector of a child restraint system can

be snapped. The bars are located at the

intersection of the vehicle seat cushion

and seat back. The upper anchorage is

a fixture to which the tether of a child

restraint system can be hooked.

The final rule required vehicle

manufacturers to begin phasing-in the

tether anchorage of the child restraint

anchorage system in the production year

beginning September 1, 1999, with full

implementation beginning September 1,

2000. Manufacturers were required to

begin phasing-in the lower anchorages

in the production year beginning on

September 1, 2000, with full

implementation beginning September 1,

2002.

The final rule was based on technical

specifications set forth in November

1996 and June 1998 drafts of a child

restraint anchorage system standard

being developed by a working group of

the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO). The technical

specifications covered matters such as

the design and configuration of the

anchorage system, and the strength of

each component of the system. While

many concepts and requirements of the

draft ISO standard were incorporated

into the final rule on Standard No. 225,

the final rule highlighted differences

between the rule and the draft ISO

standard with regard to the strength

required of the anchorages, and well as

to the marking of the anchorages and

other requirements.

NHTSA’s August 1999 Response to

Petitions for Reconsideration

There were a number of petitions for

reconsideration suggesting revisions to

the March 1999 final rule. Most of the

petitioners were vehicle manufacturers

concerned about their ability to meet the

strength requirements of the final rule,

particularly within the given leadtime.

The vehicle manufacturers stated that

they had been designing child restraint

anchorage systems to meet the strength

requirements that were under

consideration by the ISO for the lower

anchorages and by Transport Canada for

the tether anchorage, and were prepared

to meet those requirements by the

compliance date of the rule, but not the

strength requirements that the rule had

specified. In response to this concern,

NHTSA published a final rule that

permitted vehicle manufacturers to meet

alternative requirements during an

initial several-year period (64 FR 47566,

August 31, 1999) (Docket No. 99–6160).

We specified in that document that,

from September 1, 2000 until August 31,

2002,1 manufacturers installing the

lower anchorage bars would have the

option of meeting the requirements set

forth in the March 1999 final rule, or

requirements that were very similar, but

not identical, to the June 1998 draft ISO

standard.

The March 1999 final rule had

required a permanent mark on the

vehicle seat back at the location of each

lower bar location to help

knowledgeable motorists locate and use

the bars, and to inform or remind other

motorists that the bars are present

(S9.5). The mark would not be required,

the rule had specified, if the lower bars

were visible (S9.5(b)). In a April 16,

1999 petition for reconsideration of the

rule, Volkswagen stated that a ‘‘guide

device installed onto the anchorage at

the seat bight’’ should be considered ‘‘as

a marking device or an anchorage

locator.’’ 2 In the August 31, 1999

31884 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Manufacturers (the Alliance). The Alliance’s April

17, 1999 petition for reconsideration asked NHTSA

to amend S9.5 to require marking of one, not two,

of the anchorage bars, and did not specifically

request that guidance fixtures be allowed to satisfy

marking requirements. The Alliance later submitted

an October 15, 1999 petition for reconsideration

that included the request to allow guidance fixtures

as an option.

3NHTSA informed Volkswagen by telephone on

August 30, 2000, that the petition would be denied

(see memorandum in docket 2000–7648–3

describing the conversation).

response to the petitions for

reconsideration, the agency adopted

alternative visibility requirements for

the lower bars. They required that ‘‘at

least one anchorage bar (when deployed

for use), one guidance fixture, or one

seat marking feature shall be readily

visible to the person installing the [child

restraint fixture] * * *’’ (S15.4).

The Alliance’s October 1999 Petition for

Reconsideration

NHTSA received a number of

petitions for reconsideration of various

provisions of the August 1999 final rule.

The Alliance submitted an October 15,

1999 petition requesting reconsideration

of a number of provisions, including the

marking alternative in S15.4. The

Alliance asked NHTSA to add a

parenthetical phrase, ‘‘(when

installed),’’ after ‘‘guidance fixture.’’

The petitioner said that the

parenthetical should be added to S15.4

because ‘‘the intent of the S15 is to

incorporate the provisions of the ISO

Draft.’’ The Alliance did not specify

which version (i.e., what date) of the

draft ISO standard it was referring to.

NHTSA’s July 2000 Response to

Petitions for Reconsideration

In a July 31, 2000 response to

petitions for reconsideration (65 FR

46628; July 31, 2000) (Docket No.

NHTSA–7648), NHTSA declined to add

the parenthetical ‘‘(when installed)’’

sought by the Alliance. We reasoned

that adding the parenthetical would

suggest, contrary to our intent, that

manufacturers could satisfy marking

requirements if they provided the

guidance fixtures with a new motor

vehicle without actually installing them

in the motor vehicle. The agency’s

intent was that the guidance fixtures be

installed prior to delivery to consumers

to ensure that the consumer could see

the anchorage system, its location, and

its appearance when the fixtures are

properly installed. We concluded that

requiring manufacturers to install the

guidance fixtures would result in the

vehicle owner either leaving them

attached and thus ready to use or taking

some affirmative action to determine

how to remove them and then actually

removing them. We believed that, in

either event, the owners would be more

likely to notice and remember the

fixtures than if the fixtures were simply

provided with the vehicle, but not

actually installed in it.

In addition, we explained in the July

2000 final rule that NHTSA had

permitted manufacturers the option of

meeting draft ISO requirements to

facilitate and thus accelerate the

installation of child restraint anchorage

systems in vehicles. We stated that

manufacturers could meet the draft ISO

requirements for strength and location

of anchorages more expeditiously than

they could meet the March 1999 final

rule’s requirements for strength and

location. However, we concluded that

guidance fixtures could be easily

snapped on to the lower bars when the

vehicles were offered for sale. Having to

install them would not delay or impede

introduction of child restraint anchorage

systems in vehicles. We noted further

that, in the June 1998 draft version of

the ISO standard that we used in

developing the March 1999 final rule,

the parenthetical was not present. For

all these reasons, we denied the request

to add the parenthetical. Instead, to

clarify S15.4, we added a sentence

stating that ‘‘If guidance fixtures are

used to meet this [marking]

requirement, the fixture(s) (although

removable) must be installed.’’

Volkswagen August 2000 Petition for

Reconsideration

On August 17, 2000, Volkswagen filed

a petition for reconsideration

concerning S15.4. Volkswagen indicated

that it was surprised that NHTSA

denied the Alliance’s request to add the

parenthetical. Volkswagen stated that it

had been providing lower anchorages in

some of its models beginning with the

1999 model year, but had not been

providing the guidance fixtures.

Volkswagen stated in its petition:

Those anchorages are not visible and no

seat marking feature is provided but a

guidance fixture has been developed and is

available for user installation consistent with

the 1999 ISO draft. Immediately upon

becoming aware of NHTSA’s July 31, 2000

Notice, Volkswagen requested its supplier of

guidance fixtures to furnish sufficient

quantities for installation in production on a

best effort basis but in no event later than

August 30, 2000. Based upon information

furnished by the supplier, Volkswagen is not

certain that it can comply with S15.4 by the

end of August * * *. Volkswagen therefore

petitions that the effective date of S15.4 be

deferred for an additional 30 days at which

time Volkswagen will be certain that all

vehicles can be delivered to consumers in

strict compliance with the new regulations.

Volkswagen will also conduct a mailing

campaign to the owners of all Jetta, Golf,

Cabrio and New Beetle vehicles

manufactured since September 1, 1999 or

later * * *.

To justify the deferral, Volkswagen

stated:

Because guidance fixtures serve to identify

existing anchorages in the vehicle only and

are not essential to the safe use of the vehicle,

and because child restraint systems using

rigid attachments which are suitable for use

with the guidance fixtures are not available

in the market at this time, Volkswagen

believes there is no detriment to motor

vehicle safety which would be caused by the

deferral of the effective date.

II. Agency Decision

NHTSA is denying the petition for the

reasons set forth below.3

As discussed above, installation of

guidance fixtures is not the sole means

by which a manufacturer may comply

with the marking and conspicuity

requirements specified in the standard.

While Volkswagen’s request for an

extension of time to provide the

guidance fixtures was based on its

uncertainty regarding the ability of a

supplier of these fixtures to provide

sufficient quantities of the fixtures in a

time period that would enable

Volkswagen to meet the requirements of

the standard, we note that Volkswagen

could have alternatively taken steps to

mark the location of the lower

anchorages on the vehicle seat in

accordance with S9.5(a).

The August 1999 response to petitions

for reconsideration permitted

manufacturers to use a guidance fixture

to meet the marking and conspicuity

requirements for a limited time. In

interpreting the August 1999 rule,

Volkswagen apparently concluded that

a manufacturer relying on guidance

features to comply with those

requirements need not provide the

guidance fixtures with each vehicle.

Volkswagen apparently concluded that

it was possible to comply with the

requirements by offering the guidance

fixtures to new vehicle purchasers on an

‘‘as requested’’ basis.

We believe Volkswagen’s

interpretation of S15.4 was

unreasonable. The language of S15.4,

‘‘Marking and conspicuity of the lower

anchorages,’’ has stated since its

adoption that ‘‘at least one anchorage

bar (when deployed for use), one

guidance fixture, or one seat marking

feature’’ shall be readily visible. For

each vehicle to meet the requirement

that the bar, guidance fixture or seat

marking feature be visible by means of

guidance fixtures, the fixtures had to be

provided with each vehicle. The agency

notes that Volkswagen was the only

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31885

manufacturer that indicated that it

believed that the guidance fixtures

could be provided on an ‘‘as requested’’

basis.

It was also unreasonable of

Volkswagen to conclude that the

guidance fixtures need not be provided,

given the reasons why the agency had

required them. The preamble to the final

rule establishing Standard No. 225 made

clear that NHTSA considered the

standard’s marking and conspicuity

requirements to be crucial elements

contributing to the correct use of child

restraint anchorage systems. Marking

the lower anchorage bars and making

them conspicuous helps knowledgeable

motorists locate and use the bars and

informs or reminds other motorists that

the anchorage system is present.

Consumers may not otherwise learn of the

existence of a child restraint anchorage

system in a particular vehicle or at a

particular seating position in a vehicle

without some type of visual reminder that

the anchorage system is present. Even when

they know the bars are present, they may not

know precisely where in the seat bight to

look for the bars.

64 FR at 10802. It was unreasonable

for Volkswagen to conclude that

NHTSA would identify a need to make

the anchorages conspicuous and would

identify specific alternatives

manufacturers may take to meet the

need (mark the seat back, provide a

guidance fixture, or place an anchorage

where it is visible), then allow

manufacturers the option of selling

vehicles that do not meet any of the

alternatives.

Volkswagen believes there is no

detriment to motor vehicle safety which

would be caused by the deferral of the

effective date because guidance fixtures

serve to identify existing anchorages in

the vehicle only and are not essential to

the safe use of the vehicle, and because

child restraint systems using rigid

attachments which are suitable for use

with the guidance fixtures are not

available in the market at this time. To

the contrary, we believe that anchorage

bars that are not visible, marked with a

circle or made conspicuous by a

guidance fixture are not so likely to be

noticed by consumers. This lower

visibility would likely result in reduced

overall use of the child restraint

anchorage system. Installed guidance

fixtures also clearly show the anchorage

bars of a child restraint anchorage

system to users, which can reduce the

likelihood that users may mistakenly

latch their child restraints on to an

incorrect or unsuitable part of the

vehicle structure. Because guidance

fixtures increase the visibility and

therefore likelihood of correct use of the

anchorage bars, they are a benefit to all

child restraint users, not just to owners

of child restraints with rigid

attachments. Further, since child

restraint systems using rigid

attachments which are suitable for use

with the guidance fixtures will be

available in the market in the future, we

believe that during the life span of a

vehicle equipped with an anchorage

system, there is a high likelihood that

the vehicle will be owned by someone

having a child restraint with rigid

attachments. As discussed, the guidance

fixtures would facilitate use of the child

restraint anchorage system throughout

the life of the vehicle.

For these reasons, NHTSA is denying

Volkswagen’s petition for

reconsideration. The marking and

conspicuity requirements of S15.4 apply

to any child restraint anchorage system

installed on a vehicle on or after

September 1, 1999, including those

voluntarily installed.

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

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on May 31, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–14880 Filed 6–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P