Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 52939 

1 ‘‘LATCH’’ stands for ‘‘Lower Anchors and 

Tethers for Children,’’ a term that was developed 

by child restraint manufacturers and retailers to 

refer to the standardized child restraint anchorage 

system required to be installed in vehicles by 

FMVSS No. 225. The LATCH system is comprised 

of two lower anchorages and one top tether 

anchorage. Each lower anchorage includes a rigid 

round rod or bar onto which the connector of a 

child restraint system can be attached. The bars are 

located at the intersection of the vehicle seat 

cushion and seat back. The top tether anchorage is 

a fixture to which the tether of a child restraint 

system can be hooked. FMVSS No. 225 required the 

3-point LATCH system at two rear seating positions, 

and a top tether anchorage at a third rear seating 

position when a third rear seating position is 

provided in the vehicle. 

2The final rule amended FMVSS No. 213, ‘‘Child 

restraint systems’’ (49 CFR 571.213), to require the 

components on the child restraints, and to set 

performance requirements that child restraints must 

meet when attached to a vehicle seat assembly 

using the LATCH system. The requirements applied 

to child restraints manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2002. (This document uses the term 

‘‘LATCH-equipped’’ to refer to a child restraint 

system equipped with the components that attach 

to a vehicle’s LATCH system.) In addition, the rule 

required all child restraints to continue to be 

capable of being attached to a vehicle by way of the 

vehicle’s belt system. 

3A locking clip is a flat H-shaped metal clip 

intended to fasten together belt webbing (lap and 

shoulder portion) at a sliding latch plate, to prevent 

the webbing from sliding through. 

4The procedure for demonstrating compliance 

with the lockability requirement is in S7.1.1.5(c) of 

FMVSS No. 208. The lockability requirement 

applies to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 

rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. 

5An ALR is a seat belt retractor that locks when 

the continuous motion of spooling the belt out is 

stopped. From that point, the seat belt cannot be 

pulled out further without first letting the belt 

retract into the retractor housing. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 8, 

2008. 

Jeffrey D. Wiese, 

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. 

[FR Doc. E8–21283 Filed 9–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0149] 

RIN 2127–AK25 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Occupant Crash Protection 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to 

remove the sunset of a requirement in 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash 

protection,’’ that a vehicle’s lap belt 

must be lockable to tightly secure a 

child restraint system. Under FMVSS 

No. 208, the requirement ceases to apply 

to designated seating positions that are 

equipped with a child restraint 

anchorage system on vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2012. This NPRM proposes to amend 

the standard such that the requirement 

will continue to apply after September 

1, 2012, even when a child restraint 

anchorage system is present. Data 

indicate that motorists are still using 

vehicle belts to attach child restraint 

systems to a large degree, so the agency 

is seeking to ensure that lap belts 

continue to be lockable in vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2012. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

the Docket receives them not later than 

November 12, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

(identified by the DOT Docket ID 

Number above) by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the Supplementary Information section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carla Cuentas, Office of 

Crashworthiness Standards, Light Duty 

Vehicle Division (telephone 202–366– 

4583, fax 202–493–2739). For legal 

issues, contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office 

of Chief Counsel (telephone 202–366– 

2992, fax 202–366–3820). You may send 

mail to these officials at the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On March 5, 1999, NHTSA published 

a final rule establishing Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

225, ‘‘Child restraint anchorage 

systems’’ (49 CFR 571.225) (64 FR 

10786; Docket No. 98–3390, Notice 2). 

The final rule required motor vehicle 

manufacturers to install ‘‘LATCH’’ child 

restraint anchorage systems in their 

vehicles,1 and required child restraint 

manufacturers to attach components to 

child restraints that enable the child 

restraint to connect to a LATCH system 

on a vehicle.2

The final rule also amended FMVSS 

No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection’’ 

(49 CFR 571.208), by rescinding the 

‘‘lockability’’ requirement for vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2012, with respect to vehicle seating 

positions that are equipped with a 

LATCH system. FMVSS No. 208 

requires passenger vehicles to be 

equipped with seat belts and frontal air 

bags for the protection of vehicle 

occupants in crashes. Since September 

1995, the standard requires the lap belt 

to be lockable to tightly secure child 

restraint systems, without the need to 

attach a locking clip 3 or any other 

device to the vehicle’s seat belt 

webbing. This requirement, in S7.1.1.5 

of FMVSS No. 208, is called the 

‘‘lockability’’ requirement.4 A lockable 

lap belt is best for securing CRSs if seat 

belts must be used because it cinches 

the seat belt tightly and thus allows for 

a more secure installation. 

FMVSS No. 208 requires vehicles to 

be equipped with an emergency locking 

retractor (ELR) for Type 2 (lap/shoulder) 

seat belt assemblies. An ELR is a seat 

belt retractor that locks only in response 

to the rapid deceleration of the vehicle 

or rapid spooling out of the seat belt 

webbing from the retractor, and 

increases the comfort of the seat belt 

assembly as compared to an automatic 

locking retractor (ALR).5 To meet the 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
52940 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

6Even with lockability, the vehicle belt system 

still depended on the user knowing enough and 

making the effort to manipulate the belt system. 

Also, the vehicle belt must be routed correctly 

through the child restraint, which may not be an 

easy task in all cases. Further, the lockability 

requirement did not address the effects of forwardmounted seat belt anchorages on slightly reduced 

child restraint effectiveness. 64 FR at 10792. 

7 Decina, L.E., Lococo, K.H., and Doyle, C.T., 

Child Restraint Use Survey: LATCH Use and 

Misuse, DOT HS 810 679, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 2006. 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/

Communication%20&%20Consumer%20

Information/Articles/Associated%20Files/LATCH

_Report_12–2006.pdf 8Of the child restraints located in a seating 

position equipped with an upper tether anchor, 55 

percent were attached to the vehicle using the 

upper tether. 61 percent of upper tether nonusers 

and 55 percent of lower attachment nonusers cited 

their lack of knowledge—not knowing what the 

anchorages were, that they were available in the 

vehicle, the importance of using them, or how to 

use them properly—as the reason for not using 

them. 9 72 FR 3103; Docket NHTSA–2007–26833. 

Following up on the findings of the LATCH survey, 

NHTSA held the public meeting to bring together 

child restraint and vehicle manufacturers, retailers, 

technicians, researchers and consumer groups to 

discuss ways to improve the design and increase 

the use of child restraint systems. The meeting 

focused on improving LATCH system designs and 

educating the public about LATCH. A transcript of 

the meeting can be found in Docket No. NHTSA– 

07–26833–025. See page 28 of meeting transcript. 

10We do not believe that a viable alternative to 

lockable lap belts is a return to locking clips. When 

locking clips were prevalent (before the lockability 

requirement) a study found that locking clips were 

misused or not used in 72% of the cases observed. 

NHTSA, Observed Patterns of Misuse of Child 

Safety Seats, Traffic Tech, No. 133, Washington, 

DC, September 1996. 

11A ‘‘Supporters of Lockability Petition’’ signed 

by 177 supporters was attached to the petition. 

lockability requirement, vehicle 

manufacturers commonly use a 

switchable seat belt retractor (‘‘ELR/ 

ALR’’) that can be converted from an 

ELR to an ALR. The retractor is 

converted from an ELR to an ALR by 

slowly pulling all of the webbing out of 

the retractor and then letting the 

retractor wind the webbing back up. 

While switchable seat belt retractors 

and other devices used to lock the lap 

belts enable child restraints to be 

installed without use of a locking clip, 

motorists still found installation of child 

restraints using a lockable seat belt to be 

difficult.6 NHTSA required LATCH so 

that motorists could use the LATCH 

system instead of the lockable seat belt 

to install child restraints. Since the 

LATCH system was to replace the 

vehicle belt system as the means of 

installing child restraints, the agency 

believed there would be a time when 

lockable lap belts would no longer be 

needed at vehicle seating positions 

equipped with LATCH. 

That time was estimated to be in 2012 

(64 FR at 10804). In 1999, NHTSA 

believed that all child restraints ‘‘in 

use’’ would be LATCH-equipped by 

September 1, 2012, since new child 

restraints would have then been subject 

to the requirement to be LATCHequipped for ten years. We believed that 

by 2012, child restraints in use would 

be using the LATCH system and not a 

lockable vehicle seat belt to attach to the 

vehicle seat, and so the lockability 

requirement would no longer be needed 

in positions with LATCH. Accordingly, 

the LATCH final rule rescinded the 

lockability requirement for those 

positions, in vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2012. 

II. Current Information Indicates Need 

for Lockability 

Notwithstanding the agency’s 

projections in 1999, current information 

available to NHTSA indicates a need to 

retain the lockability requirement of 

FMVSS No. 208. Current data indicate 

that many motorists are continuing to 

use the vehicle’s belt system to install 

child restraints, even when attaching a 

LATCH-equipped child restraint. To 

assess consumer response to LATCH, 

NHTSA conducted a survey 7 from April 

to October 2005 on the types of restraint 

systems being used to keep children safe 

while riding in passenger vehicles, i.e., 

whether drivers of vehicles with LATCH 

were using LATCH to secure their 

LATCH-equipped child restraints to the 

vehicle, and if so, whether they were 

properly installing the restraints. The 

survey found that in 13 percent of the 

LATCH-equipped vehicles in which 

there was a child restraint, the restraint 

was placed in a seat position not 

equipped with lower anchors (the 

vehicle seat belt was used to secure the 

restraint to the vehicle). Among the 87 

percent who placed the child restraint at 

a position equipped with lower anchors, 

only 60 percent used the lower 

attachments to secure the restraint to the 

vehicle.8 While the LATCH survey 

found that consumers who have 

experience with LATCH like the system 

and that LATCH is helping to reduce the 

insecure installation of child restraints, 

the report also indicated that proper use 

of LATCH is not inherently evident to 

parents. Many parents do not use 

LATCH; they may not know about it or 

understand its importance, or may have 

difficulties using it. 

In light of the findings of the LATCH 

survey, we are reassessing the 

assumption made in the 1999 LATCH 

final rule that by 2012 LATCH will 

replace seat belts as the means of 

attaching child restraints. The agency 

held a February 8, 2007, public meeting 

discussing the LATCH survey and 

related issues,9 including whether the 

lockability requirement should be 

retained given the survey results 

showing that vehicle belts are still being 

widely used to attach child restraints. In 

response to the LATCH survey and as 

discussed at the public meeting, NHTSA 

has initiated a comprehensive consumer 

education campaign about LATCH. 

However, since the LATCH survey 

indicated that consumers are drawn to 

using the vehicle seat belt system to 

attach child restraints even when 

LATCH is available, we tentatively 

conclude that the lockability 

requirement should not sunset in 2012 

as scheduled. We tentatively conclude 

that for consumers who use the lap/ 

shoulder belts, the belt system should 

be made as easy-to-use as reasonably 

possible in attaching their child 

restraints, and that extending the 

lockability requirement is the most 

reasonable way to make the belt system 

easy-to-use.10 We are issuing this NPRM 

to propose keeping the lockability 

requirement in effect past September 1, 

2012, and to provide notice to vehicle 

manufacturers that the lockability 

requirement might not sunset in 2012 

and that product plans may have to be 

adjusted. 

This decision to proceed with an 

NPRM is supported by other 

information received by the agency. On 

January 22, 2007, SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 

(SafetyBeltSafe) and Safe Ride News 

petitioned the agency to remove the 

sunset clause in the lockability 

requirement.11 The petitioners believed 

that rescission of the requirement in 

2012 could have ‘‘deleterious effects on 

the safety of children.’’ According to the 

petitioners, parents and caregivers of 

special needs children would like the 

continuation of the lockability 

requirement because the belt provides a 

way of restraining children who find it 

difficult to sit still or upright. According 

to the petitioners, the parents and 

caregivers believe that the lockability 

feature of lap belts prevents these 

children from manipulating the seat belt 

or introducing slack into the belt. The 

petitioners also stated there are child 

restraints recommended for children 

weighing more than 40 pounds and that 

a lockable lap belt is needed to secure 

these systems to the vehicle, because 

such a child restraint may exceed a 

maximum 40 to 48 pound weight limit 

for LATCH set by some vehicle 

manufacturers. SafetyBeltSafe and Safe 

Ride News also believed that the 

lockability feature of ELR/ALR 

retractors can be used to lock the 

unused belt when the CRS is anchored 

with LATCH so that children cannot 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 52941 

12The petitioners also suggested that the 

lockability feature of lap belts can be used for 

purposes such as restraining equipment or other 

objects to the vehicle seat or restraining arrestees 

transported in police vehicles. The agency is not 

issuing this NPRM based on those suggestions. The 

petition also argued that in vehicle rear seats with 

three designated seating positions (three sets of lap/ 

shoulder belts) and only two seats of LATCH, 

manufacturers might move lower anchors inboard 

‘‘to lessen exposure to intrusion in side impacts.’’ 

The petitioners believed that in such a vehicle, to 

accommodate three child restraints in the rear seat 

the belts would have to be used and thus lockability 

needed. No data was presented to support the 

supposition that LATCH anchors might move 

inboard or on the frequency of the occurrence of the 

described situation (three child restraints 

simultaneously accommodated in the second row 

seat). The agency does not consider this suggestion 

as a petition for rulemaking or as part of the petition 

for rulemaking addressed by this NPRM. 

pull the shoulder portion of the belt out 

and play with it inappropriately (e.g., 

wrapping it around the neck and 

activating the retractor unintentionally). 

The petitioners also stated that a 

lockable lap belt could be used where 

the vehicle LATCH anchorage locations 

are not compatible with the child 

restraint (i.e., where the anchorages are 

deep in the seat cushion or above the 

seat bight).12 The agency granted the 

petition on June 20, 2007. Several 

comments made in the context of the 

February 8, 2007, public meeting also 

supported retaining the lockability 

requirement past September 1, 2012 

(Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety, NHTSA–2006–26735–0003; Ms. 

Julie Robbins, Chicco USA, transcript 

page 219 of the transcript, supra.). 

III. Proposed Effective Date 

NHTSA proposes that a final rule on 

this rulemaking, assuming one is issued, 

would be effective 120 days after 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. The effective date is the date 

on which the Federal Register would be 

amended to reflect the changes made by 

the final rule. 

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking document was not 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not 

considered to be significant under E.O. 

12866 or the Department’s Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979). This NPRM 

proposes to remove the sunset of a 

requirement which is currently in effect. 

The agency is seeking to ensure that lap 

belts continue to be lockable in vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2012. The rulemaking would not affect 

current costs of manufacturing lap belt 

systems. The minimal impacts of 

today’s amendment do not warrant 

preparation of a regulatory evaluation. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this 

action on small entities. I hereby certify 

that this proposed rule would not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The NPRM 

would affect motor vehicle 

manufacturers, multistage 

manufacturers and alterers, but the 

entities that qualify as small businesses 

would not be significantly affected by 

this rulemaking because they are 

already required to comply with the 

lockability requirements and have been 

since 1995. This NPRM proposes to 

remove the sunset of the requirement to 

ensure that lap belts continue to be 

lockable in vehicles manufactured on or 

after September 1, 2012. The rulemaking 

would not affect current costs of 

manufacturing lap belt systems. 

Executive Order 13132 

NHTSA has examined today’s NPRM 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rulemaking would not have 

federalism implications because a final 

rule, if issued, would not have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

Further, no consultation is needed to 

discuss the preemptive effect of today’s 

rulemaking. NHTSA rules can have 

preemptive effect in at least two ways. 

First, the National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act contains an express 

preemptive provision: ‘‘When a motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect under 

this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

that preempts State law, not today’s 

rulemaking, so consultation would be 

inappropriate. 

Second, in addition to the express 

preemption noted above, the Supreme 

Court has also recognized that State 

requirements imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers, including sanctions 

imposed by State tort law, can stand as 

an obstacle to the accomplishment and 

execution of a NHTSA safety standard. 

When such a conflict is discerned, the 

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 

makes their State requirements 

unenforceable. See Geier v. American 

Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

NHTSA has not discerned any conflict 

in today’s rulemaking. However, in part 

because such conflicts can arise in 

varied contexts, the agency cannot rule 

out the possibility that such a conflict 

may become clear through subsequent 

experience with the proposed standard 

and test regime. NHTSA may opine on 

such conflicts in the future, if 

warranted. See Id. at 883–86. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for 

the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action would not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the procedures established by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a 

person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information by a Federal 

agency unless the collection displays a 

valid OMB control number. This NPRM 

would not establish any new 

information collection requirements. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal 

agencies and departments shall use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, using such technical 

standards as a means to carry out policy 

objectives or activities determined by 

the agencies and departments.’’ There 

are no voluntary consensus standards 

pertaining to the lockability 

requirements addressed today. 

Civil Justice Reform 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
52942 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

proposed rule is discussed above. 

NHTSA notes further that there is no 

requirement that individuals submit a 

petition for reconsideration or pursue 

other administrative proceeding before 

they may file suit in court. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). This NPRM would not result in 

expenditures by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector in excess of $100 million 

annually. 

Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under E.O. 

12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health, or safety risk that 

NHTSA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. 

This rulemaking is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

E.O. 12866. 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 18, 2001) applies to any 

rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be 

economically significant as defined 

under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have 

a significantly adverse effect on the 

supply of, distribution of, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. This 

rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211. 

Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

President’s memorandum of June 1, 

1998, require each agency to write all 

rules in plain language. Application of 

the principles of plain language 

includes consideration of the following 

questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please include them in your 

comments on this proposal. 

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. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles, and Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 

571 as set forth below. 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

1. The authority citation for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

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

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Section 571.208 is amended by: 

A. Revising the introductory 

paragraph of S7.1.1.5, and 

B. Removing S7.1.1.5(d). 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant 

crash protection. 

* * * * * 

S7.1.1.5 Passenger cars, and trucks, 

buses, and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) or less manufactured on or 

after September 1, 1995 shall meet the 

requirements of S7.1.1.5(a), S7.1.1.5(b) 

and S7.1.1.5(c). 

* * * * * 

Issued on September 5, 2008. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E8–21026 Filed 9–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 402 

[FWS–R9–ES–2008–0093] 

RIN 1018–AT50 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 402 

[0808011023–81048–01] 

RIN 0618–AX15 

Interagency Cooperation Under the 

Endangered Species Act 

AGENCIES: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Interior; National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

(collectively, ‘‘we’’) are extending the 

comment period for proposed 

regulations governing interagency 

cooperation under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

by October 14, 2008 to ensure their full 

consideration in the final decision on 

this proposal. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments or 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

in one of the following ways: 

(1) Through the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the instructions on the Web site for 

submitting comments. 

(2) By U.S. mail or hand-delivery to 

Public Comment Processing, Attention: 

1018–AT50, Division of Policy and 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS