Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 58887 

Martel, Policy Analyst, at 202–606–1772 

or e-mail: marguerite.martel@opm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM 

published a proposed rule to remove the 

designation of the ASBCA from the 

LIFAR on April 7, 2008, at 73 FR 18730. 

No comments were received. 

Accordingly, OPM is adopting the 

proposed rule without change. The rule 

implements the provisions of the 

National Defense Authorization Act of 

2006, which created the Civilian Board 

of Contract Appeals (CBCA) with 

authority extending to most civilian 

agencies, including OPM. The CBCA 

has now replaced the ASBCA as the 

venue for claims brought under the Act 

for the Federal Employees Group Life 

Insurance (FEGLI) Program. OPM is 

updating the LIFAR to eliminate 

reference to the ASBCA to reflect this 

change in the law. 

Collection of Information Requirement 

This rulemaking makes a minor 

clarifying amendment to the Federal 

Employees Group Life Insurance 

Acquisition Regulations. The rule does 

not impose information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements that meet 

the definition of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995’s term 

‘‘collection of information,’’ which 

means obtaining, causing to be obtained, 

soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to 

third parties or the public, of facts or 

opinions by or for an agency, regardless 

of form or format, calling for either 

answers to identical questions posed to, 

or identical reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements imposed on ten or more 

persons, other than agencies, 

instrumentalities, or employees of the 

United States; or answers to questions 

posed to agencies, instrumentalities, or 

employees of the United States which 

are to be used for general statistical 

purposes. Consequently, it need not be 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget under the authority of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

requires agencies to analyze options for 

regulatory relief of small businesses. For 

purposes of the RFA, small entities 

include small businesses, nonprofit 

organizations, and government agencies 

with revenues of $11.5 million or less in 

any one year. This rulemaking affects 

the FEGLI Program carrier and its 

contractual arrangements that exceed 

the dollar threshold. Therefore, I certify 

that this regulation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

We have examined the impact of this 

proposed rule as required by Executive 

Order 12866 (September 1993, 

Regulatory Planning and Review), the 

RFA (September 16, 1980, Pub. L. 96– 

354), section 1102(b) of the Social 

Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–4), and 

Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 

12866 (as amended by Executive Order 

13258, which merely assigns 

responsibility of duties) directs agencies 

to assess all costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives and, if 

regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety effects, distributive impacts, 

and equity). A regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) must be prepared for 

major rules with economically 

significant effects ($100 million or more 

in any one year). This rule is not 

considered a major rule, as defined in 

title 5, United States Code, section 

804(2), because we estimate it will affect 

only the FEGLI carrier. Any resulting 

economic impact would not be expected 

to exceed the dollar threshold. 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Review 

This rule has been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget in 

accordance with Executive Order 12866. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 2133 

Government employees, Government 

procurement, life insurance. 

Office of Personnel Management. 

Howard Weizmann, 

Deputy Director. 

■ Accordingly, under the authority of 5 

U.S.C. 8716; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 48 CFR 

1.301. OPM is amending chapter 21 of 

title 48 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations by removing and reserving 

part 2133. 

PART 2133—[RESERVED] 

[FR Doc. E8–23223 Filed 10–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2008–0059] 

RIN 2127–AI94 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Designated Seating 

Positions and Seat Belt Assembly 

Anchorages 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Today’s final rule amends the 

definition of the term, ‘‘designated 

seating position,’’ as used in the Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards 

(FMVSS), to indicate more clearly 

which areas within the interior of a 

vehicle meet that definition. Today’s 

final rule also establishes a calculation 

procedure for determining the number 

of designated seating positions at a seat 

location for trucks and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight rating less than 10,000 lbs, 

passenger cars, and buses. Further, this 

document eliminates the existing 

exclusion of auxiliary seats (i.e., 

temporary or folding jump seats) from 

the definition of ‘‘designated seating 

position.’’ Today’s final rule encourages 

manufacturers to use a variety of visual 

cues in the design of the vehicle interior 

to help improve occupant awareness as 

to which areas of a vehicle are not 

intended to be used as seating positions. 

This will help to ensure that occupants 

sit in locations where they are afforded 

the crash protection required by the 

FMVSSs. 

DATES: The effective date of this final 

rule is December 8, 2008. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of December 8, 2008. 

Petitions for reconsideration must be 

received not later than November 24, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions must be submitted 

to: Administrator, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may contact Chris 

Wiacek of the NHTSA Office of 

Crashworthiness Standards by 

telephone at (202) 366–4801, and by fax 

at (202) 493–2290. 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
58888 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

1NHTSA uses the term ‘‘light vehicle’’ to refer to 

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating 

(GVWR) of not greater than 10,000 lb. 

For legal issues, you may contact Ed 

Glancy of the NHTSA Office of Chief 

Counsel by telephone at (202) 366–2992 

and by fax at (202) 366–3820. 

You may send mail to both of these 

officials at the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

II. Public Comments on Proposal 

III. Final Rule 

A. Changes Since the NPRM 

B. ‘‘Designated Seating position’’ 

C. Measuring Seating Surface 

D. Calculating the Number of Designated 

Seating Positions 

E. Auxiliary Seating and Seat Belt 

Anchorages 

IV. Benefits and Costs 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Effective Date 

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

On June 22, 2005, the agency 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) in which we 

proposed a revised definition of 

‘‘designated seating position’’ (DSP) and 

a calculation procedure for determining 

the number of seating positions at a seat 

location (70 Fed. Reg. 36094; Docket No. 

NHTSA 2005–21600). The NPRM 

focused on two main objectives: 

(1) To provide a more objective 

definition of DSP and a more objective 

method for determining the number of 

DSPs at a seating location; and 

(2) To eliminate the existing exclusion 

of auxiliary seats from the DSP 

definition so that all seating locations 

intended to be used while a vehicle is 

in motion provide the appropriate levels 

of crash protection. 

The designation of a seating position 

is important for a variety of reasons. 

Under the Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards (FMVSSs), motor vehicle 

manufacturers must meet various 

performance requirements for each 

position designated as a seating 

position. For example, FMVSS No. 208, 

‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ requires 

that each designated seating position, as 

defined in § 49 CFR 571.3, in a light 

vehicle 1 be provided with the 

appropriate occupant crash protection 

system (e.g., air bag, safety belts or 

both). If a vehicle has fewer designated 

seating positions than the number of 

seated individuals actually occupying it, 

one or more occupants would not be 

protected by safety belts and/or other 

crash protection systems. 

The Preliminary Regulatory 

Evaluation (PRE) that accompanied the 

NPRM indicated that, in some vehicles, 

the number of DSPs did not reflect real 

world occupancy. Crash data revealed 

instances in which three passengers 

were occupying seats designated as 

having only two seating positions (2– 

DSP seats). As a result, one of the 

occupants was not afforded the crash 

protection required at a DSP, namely, a 

safety belt system. Further, data 

indicated a drop in seat belt usage rate 

for these cases from 53.3 percent to 27.7 

percent due to a third occupant seated 

at a location without a restraint. 

In addition to the crash data, the 

agency received numerous complaints 

from vehicle purchasers that the number 

of DSPs at some rear bench seats was 

not readily obvious. These bench seats 

were designated as having fewer seating 

positions than purchasers recognized, 

i.e., at the time of sale, purchasers 

believed these bench seats were large 

enough to seat three people and 

assumed that there were seat belts for all 

of them when in fact the seats had only 

2–DSPs and thus seat belts for only two 

people. Based on the crash data and 

complaints, we proposed revisions to 

the ‘‘designated seating position’’ 

definition intending to aid 

manufacturers and vehicle purchasers 

in judging whether a location is or 

should be a DSP and in determining the 

number of DSPs at a given location. 

The agency proposed to remove the 

language in the definition that defined 

a DSP as a location that is ‘‘likely to be 

used’’ as a seat while a vehicle is in 

motion and that meets a hip room 

metric, based on the hip dimensions of 

a 5th percentile adult female. We also 

proposed that the number of DSPs at a 

location would be calculated using a hip 

room measurement. Under the proposal, 

the measured width of a location and 

thus the number of DSPs could be 

limited by the installation of specified 

features, i.e., voids or impediments, to 

indicate that a portion of a location was 

not intended to be used as a seating 

surface. The characteristics of these 

voids and impediments were based on 

those features that appeared to have the 

practical effect of limiting occupancy to 

the intended number of DSPs in a 

surveyed fleet. As explained in the 

NPRM, the agency’s intent was not to 

require manufacturers to increase the 

number of DSPs in vehicles, but to 

provide a clearer physical indication of 

the actual number of locations at which 

crash protection features are provided. 

To further ensure that vehicle 

occupants are provided with 

appropriate crash protection, the agency 

also proposed to eliminate the exclusion 

of auxiliary seats from the definition of 

DSP. Since these seats are generally 

designed to be used when the vehicle is 

in motion, their occupants need crash 

protection just as those in other seats 

do. However, because these types of 

seats are not currently regarded as DSPs, 

manufacturers are not required to 

provide crash protection such as safety 

belts or lower anchorages and tethers for 

child seats (LATCH systems) at those 

locations. 

II. Public Comments on Proposal 

In response to the NPRM, the agency 

received comments from a variety of 

organizations. Comment were submitted 

by the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers (Alliance); General 

Motors; Subaru; Hyundai; Nissan; the 

Truck Manufacturers Association 

(TMA); Recreation Vehicle Industry 

Association (RVIA); Fire Apparatus 

Manufacturers Association (FAMA); 

Fleetwood Enterprises, a motor home 

manufacturer; Flexsteel Industries, Inc., 

a seat manufacturer; Insurance Institute 

for Highway Safety (IIHS); Safety 

Research and Strategies (SRS), a 

research organization; and Public 

Citizen, a public interest organization. 

The commenters generally supported 

the establishment of a ‘‘designated 

seating position’’ definition that 

provided greater specificity. However, 

all but IIHS raised concern over the 

definition and calculation procedure for 

determining the number of designated 

seating positions proposed in the 

NPRM. 

The motor vehicle manufacturers and 

the Alliance expressed concern that the 

proposed revisions to the DSP 

definition, particularly the calculation 

procedure, would have unintended 

consequences. General Motors stated 

that several front row bucket seats 

would be classified as having 2–DSPs, 

instead of 1–DSP, under the proposal. 

The Alliance stated that the void and 

impediment countermeasures could 

force passengers to sit farther outboard, 

potentially affecting their protection in 

a side impact. Hyundai and Nissan 

stated that the proposed revisions 

would require redesign of vehicles, 

which would necessitate at least three 

years of lead time. 

TMA and FAMA both commented 

that the proposal, if made final, would 

impede the unique functions of many 

commercial and emergency vehicles. 

RVIA, Flexsteel, and Fleetwood stated 

that the proposed procedure for 

calculating the number of DSPs would 

limit the functionality of the seating 

positions in their vehicles by requiring 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 58889 

2Safety Research and Strategies also stated that 

its analysis of the data indicated that the incident 

rate of three occupants seated at the 2–DSP rear seat 

of the Acura Integra 2-Door was twice as high as 

presented in the PRE. The incident rates of the 

Acura were relied upon by the agency in 

developing the impediment countermeasure. 

However, it is unclear whether Safety Research and 

Strategies evaluated data from the same period as 

in the agency’s analysis. 

either the designation of additional 

DSPs and the addition of an equal 

number of seat belts or the addition of 

a countermeasure. These commenters 

stated that such design changes would 

interfere with the functional nature of 

motor home seats and furnishings. RVIA 

also expressed concern that the 

elimination of the language ‘‘likely to be 

used as a seating position while the 

vehicle is in motion’’ would have the 

effect of eliminating the option under 

FMVSS No. 207, ‘‘Seating systems,’’ of 

placing a label on a seating location 

stating that it is not to be used while the 

vehicle is in motion, instead of 

designating the location as a DSP and 

installing a seat belt. 

Safety Research and Strategies and 

Public Citizen questioned the benefits of 

the proposed revisions. Safety Research 

and Strategies stated that the void and 

impediment countermeasures were not 

supported by human factors analysis, 

and were based on vehicles with low 

numbers of registrations. They also said 

that the agency did not perform a 

statistical analysis of the degree of 

confidence of the number of incidents of 

the vehicles.2 Public Citizen questioned 

the proposal’s use of countermeasures 

in the measurement for determining the 

number of DSPs, and stated that unless 

seat belts were required, as opposed to 

design elements that would reduce 

seating space, there would be no 

benefits associated with the proposal. 

Both Safety Research and Strategies and 

Public Citizen commented that the 

agency did not provide a basis for 

asserting that the proposed definition of 

DSP and the associated procedure 

would preempt State law, including 

State tort law. 

Additional issues raised by 

commenters are discussed below in the 

discussion of the final rule. 

III. Final Rule 

A. Changes Since the NPRM 

When the agency issued the NPRM in 

mid-2005, we raised concern that some 

motor vehicle seat designs were not 

indicative of their intended occupancy. 

Data from 1997 through 2001 indicated 

that real world occupancy rates were 

exceeding the number of designated 

seating positions, particularly on bench 

and split bench seats. Since 2001, 

vehicle seat designs have changed. 

As discussed above, the agency 

received complaints from vehicle 

purchasers regarding the actual number 

of DSPs at rear bench seats. At the time 

of the agency investigation in 2001, 

NHTSA received a complaint from a 

safety research consultant concerning 

the rear seat of the 2-door Ford Explorer. 

Ford submitted information indicating 

that 35 consumers had complained that 

they had thought that vehicle had rear 

seating for three people and were 

surprised to learn that there were only 

2 DSPs. 

The most notable change since 2001 

has been a decrease in the size of 2–DSP 

seat locations. The width of the average 

seating surface for a 2–DSP seating 

location in MY 2001 sports utility 

vehicles surveyed by the agency was 

1,118 mm (44 inches). The width of the 

average seating surface for a 2–DSP 

seating location in comparable MY 2006 

vehicles surveyed by the agency was 

979 mm (38.5 inches). Both values 

reflect the measurement method in this 

final rule. The reduced seat size more 

clearly indicates to occupants the 

capacity for which crash protection is 

provided. 

Based on changes to current seat 

design and the comments received in 

response to the NPRM, today’s 

document adopts the agency’s proposal, 

but with several changes. 

B. ‘‘Designated Seating Position’’ 

Consistent with the proposal, the 

agency is adopting a definition of 

‘‘designated seating position’’ that is 

based on the hip measurement of a 5th 

percentile adult female. However, 

instead of relying on a hip room 

measurement, today’s final rule 

incorporates a measurement of seating 

surface (e.g., surface width) that 

corresponds to a 5th percentile adult 

female. 

As explained in the NPRM, 

‘‘designated seating position’’ is 

currently defined, in part, as: 

[Any] plan view location capable of 

accommodating a person at least as large as 

a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall 

seat configuration and design and vehicle 

design is such that the position is likely to 

be used as a seating position while the 

vehicle is in motion [.] 

(49 CFR 571.3(b).) 

The NPRM proposed to rely expressly 

on the hip room dimensions for a 5th 

percentile adult female, instead of the 

somewhat less precise criteria of being 

large enough to accommodate such a 

person. The proposed definition 

measured available hip room according 

to procedures established by the Society 

of Automotive Engineers (SAE), with 

qualifications to provide for 

measurement of the largest hip room 

dimension and the incorporation of Hpoint in the measurement procedure. 

We also proposed to eliminate the 

‘‘likely to be used’’ qualification in the 

definition. We believe that this language 

was insufficiently precise to provide a 

completely useful guide as to which 

positions must be considered DSPs. In 

proposing to eliminate that 

qualification, we recognized that it is 

not practicable to design a vehicle to 

prevent all potential occupant misuse of 

interior positions. However, as we 

stated in the NPRM, there is abundant 

notice to drivers and occupants of light 

vehicles that the use of safety belts is 

essential, and therefore, that sitting in a 

location in a vehicle that is not 

equipped with a safety belt is 

inappropriate and dangerous. Vehicle 

literature and advertising, as well as 

numerous public outreach programs, 

inform and remind the public of the 

need to wear safety belts while riding in 

a vehicle. Vehicle owners’ manuals are 

replete with exhortations about the 

importance of always wearing a safety 

belt. Further, the warning label required 

to be on the sun visor in every light 

vehicle expressly tells vehicle 

occupants to wear safety belts always. 

The public’s awareness of these 

messages is evidenced by the fact that 

the national safety belt use rate 

increased from 71 percent in 2001 to 82 

percent in 2005, an all time high. 

Nevertheless, the agency was aware that 

some vehicles had certain locations that 

were not equipped with crash 

protection and that might have given the 

appearance of being seating positions, 

thereby encouraging their use by 

passengers. The ‘‘likely to be used’’ 

language did not provide a sufficiently 

objective method of resolving these 

difficult cases. 

Commenters generally focused on the 

calculation procedure for determining 

the number of DSPs at a location, and 

did not provide much comment on the 

proposed revision to the ‘‘designated 

seating position’’ definition in 49 CFR 

571.3(b). Commenters raised issue with 

the procedure for measuring hip room 

specified in the proposed 49 CFR 

571.10, which was referenced in the 

proposed ‘‘designated seating position’’ 

definition. As explained in greater detail 

below, the final definition in § 571.3(b) 

and procedure in § 571.10 adopted in 

this document rely on the width of the 

seating surface, as opposed to the 

proposed hip room measurement. 

Under the definition adopted today, a 

seat location is regarded as having at 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
58890 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

3The 5th percentile female hip width specified in 

S7.1.4 of FMVSS No. 208 is of 325 mm (12.8 

inches). We rounded the measurement to 330 mm 

(13 inches) for purposes of the formula proposed 

below. 

4The dimensions of this zone are based on the 

definition in S16.3.1.12 of FMVSS No. 208 of the 

term ‘‘seat cushion reference point’’ (SCRP). The 

term is defined as meaning a point placed on the 

outboard side of the seat cushion at a horizontal 

distance between 150 mm (5.9 in) and 250 mm (9.8 

in) from the front edge of the seat used as a guide 

in positioning the seat. 

least one DSP if it has a seat surface 

width of at least 330 mm (13 inches). 

Three hundred and thirty millimeters is 

consistent with the hip dimensions of a 

5th percentile adult female.3 We believe 

that the actual seat surface width is 

more reflective of a location’s ability to 

accommodate an occupant than the 

proposed hip room measurement. The 

proposed hip room measurement 

potentially included voids between a 

seat and interior vehicle trim (e.g., the 

space between a seat and the inside of 

a door), or locations underneath trim 

(e.g., an arm rest) that would be unlikely 

to accommodate a seated occupant. The 

method for measuring the width of a 

seat surface is specified in § 571.10, as 

well as the procedure for determining 

the number of DSPs at a seat location. 

C. Measuring Seating Surface 

Today’s final rule establishes a 

procedure for measuring seating surface 

width and places it in new section, 

§ 571.10, Designation of Seating 

Positions. The seating surface 

measurement is used, in part, to 

determine if a seat location is large 

enough for a least one designated 

seating position. Once a seat location is 

identified as a ‘‘designated seating 

position,’’ the seat surface measurement 

is then used in light vehicles to 

determine the number of DSPs at that 

location. 

The NPRM relied on hip room in 

determining whether a location is a 

DSP, and the number of DSPs at that 

location. The proposed § 571.10 set out, 

with several modifications, the 

procedure in SAE Recommended 

Practice J1100 rev. February 2001 

‘‘Motor Vehicle Dimensions.’’ The 

proposed procedure in § 571.10 differed 

from the SAE procedure in that the 

agency’s method would use the H-point 

as a reference as opposed to the seating 

reference point. Additionally, while the 

SAE procedure uses the minimum 

dimension measured laterally between 

the interior trim of a vehicle on the ‘‘X’’ 

plane through the seating reference 

point, we proposed using a maximum 

dimension. 

Under the proposal, hip room was to 

be considered continuous unless there 

was a separation greater than 150 mm 

(5.9 inches) between adjacent seat 

cushions, or between a seat cushion and 

the vehicle interior, and the separation 

contained either: 

(1) A fixed, unpadded impediment 

that is at least 5 mm (0.2 inches) higher 

than the highest point on the upper 

surface of the seat cushion when viewed 

in profile, and that extends more than 

two-thirds of the horizontal depth of the 

seat cushion; 

(2) A void that can accommodate a 

rectangular box 150 mm (5.9 inches) 

wide, 150 mm (5.9 inches) high, and 

two thirds the horizontal depth of the 

seat cushion in length, such that the box 

is sitting 2 mm (0.08 inches) below each 

point on the top profile of the seat 

cushion; or 

(3) A parking brake or gear shift 

handle, that, when placed in the lowest 

possible position, is not less than 25 

mm (1.0 inches) higher than the highest 

point of the seat cushion. 

Commenters raised a number of issues 

with the proposed procedure for 

measuring a seat location. 

Manufacturers commented that the 

proposed measuring procedure would 

result in a variety of unintended 

consequences. Manufacturers, Safety 

Research and Strategies, and Public 

Citizen questioned whether the 

countermeasures for terminating a 

measurement, i.e., a void or specified 

impediment, would in fact have the 

effect of limiting the number of 

occupants to the number of DSPs. 

Manufacturers stated that use of the 

maximum hip room measurement under 

the revised SAE procedure would result 

in an increase in the number of DSPs at 

seat locations. The Alliance and General 

Motors commented that front row 

bucket seats in several vehicles are not 

separated by any of the proposed 

countermeasures, and accordingly 

would become considered as having 3 

DSPs. These commenters stated that the 

crash data focused on bench and split 

bench seats and that the agency did not 

demonstrate any problem with bucket 

seats. Further, the Alliance, General 

Motors, and Flexsteel Industries stated 

that the measurement at many locations 

would include the void between two 

seats and the void between the seat and 

interior trim. These commenters stated 

that additional space cannot 

accommodate an occupant, but would 

nevertheless be included in the 

calculation for determining the number 

of DSPs at a location. Subaru noted that 

the measurement as specified may in 

some instances measure the area 

underneath an arm rest, which provides 

an obvious impediment to seating. 

Safety Research and Strategies and 

Public Citizen stated that the agency did 

not have any human factors data to 

demonstrate that the proposed 

countermeasures would influence the 

seating behavior of occupants. Safety 

Research and Strategies stated that the 

agency based the countermeasures on 

interior designs of low volume vehicles, 

which did not provide a sufficient 

vehicle population for determining the 

effectiveness of the countermeasures. 

1. Measuring Procedure 

The agency is adopting a procedure 

for measuring a seat surface for the 

purpose of determining the presence of 

a DSP location and the number of DSPs 

at that location. Seating surface width is 

reflective of the actual area available to 

accommodate an occupant. For 

example, the procedure adopted today 

would not include a void between a 

seating surface and the door trim as part 

of the seating area. Under the final rule 

adopted today, seating surface width is 

the maximum width of a seating surface 

measured in a zone extending from a 

transverse vertical plane 150 mm (5.9 

inches) behind the front leading surface 

of that seating surface to a transverse 

vertical plane 250 mm (9.8 inches) 

behind that front leading surface, 

measured horizontally and 

longitudinally.4 Using the seating 

surface avoids the unintended 

consequences of the proposal, i.e., 

increasing the calculated vehicle seating 

capacity. Those consequences would 

have occurred under the proposal 

because the maximum H-point 

measurement included aspects or areas 

of the vehicle such as arm rests molded 

into the side trim that cannot be used as 

part of a seating surface. 

Noting that the proposed H-point 

measurement may vary depending on 

seat adjustment, Subaru requested that 

the agency specify an adjustment 

procedure prior to measuring hip room. 

The use of a seating surface 

measurement will be less affected by 

seat position than the proposed H-point 

measurement. In addition, today’s final 

rule specifies that folding, removable, 

and adjustable seats are measured in the 

configuration which results in the single 

largest maximum seating surface width. 

In addition to providing a 

measurement more reflective of a 

vehicle’s seating area, reliance on 

seating surface width will, in part, avoid 

the unintended consequences of the 

proposed hip-room measurement. Based 

on an agency survey of vehicles, the 

agency determined that reliance on 

seating surface width will result in 

bucket seats, which are readily 

identifiable as one DSP, being 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 58891 

5The DSP definition itself will be applicable to 

all vehicles including motor homes, police vehicles, 

school buses, ambulances, fire fighting vehicles, 

and trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles 

with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or greater. 

designated as having only a single 

seating position. 

2. Countermeasures 

Today’s final rule revises the 

countermeasures specified in the 

NPRM. Under today’s final rule, 

adjacent seat surfaces are considered 

continuous, unless: 

(i) The seating surfaces are separated by: 

(A) A fixed trimmed surface whose top 

surface is unpadded and that has a width not 

less than 140 mm (5.5 inches), as measured 

in each transverse vertical plane within that 

measurement zone, or 

(B) A void whose cross section in each 

transverse vertical plane within that 

measurement zone is a rectangle that is not 

less than 140 mm (5.5 inches) wide and not 

less than 140 mm (5.5 inches) deep. The top 

edge of the cross section in any such plane 

is congruent with the transverse horizontal 

line that intersects the lowest point on the 

portion of the top profile of the seating 

surfaces that lie within that plane. 

or 

(ii) Interior trim interrupts the 

measurement of the nominal hip room of the 

seating surfaces, measured laterally along the 

‘‘X’’ plane through the H-point. For purposes 

of this paragraph, the H-point is located 

using the SAE three-dimensional H-point 

machine per SAE Recommended Practice 

J826, rev. July 1995, with the legs and leg 

weights removed, 

or 

(iii) The seating surfaces are adjacent 

outboard seats, and the lateral distance 

between any point on the seat cushion of one 

seat and any point on the seat cushion of the 

other seat is not less than 140 mm (5.5 

inches). 

As we stated in the NPRM, we 

recognize that it is not practical to 

design a vehicle to prevent all potential 

misuse of interior positions that could 

be used for seating (70 FR 36096). 

However, the countermeasures 

incorporated in the new definition will 

provide visual cues to indicate the 

number of DSPs at a seat location and 

thus the number of people who should 

sit there. As discussed above, the agency 

received a number of complaints from 

consumers who said that, at time of 

purchase, the actual number of 

manufacturer designated seating 

positions at some bench seats was not 

readily apparent to them. Today’s final 

rule is intended to eliminate 

complaints, result in seat designs that 

better convey the number of occupants 

that are intended to occupy a seat, and 

ensure that all occupants can be 

properly restrained. 

Today’s final rule provides 

manufacturers with flexibility in 

designing seats. A manufacturer may 

install an impediment or void as 

described above in order to maintain the 

current number of DSPs. If a fixed trim 

surface is appropriately configured, a 

convenience function, such as a cup 

holder, tray or storage, also can serve as 

an impediment. A manufacturer is also 

given the option of preventing two 

adjacent seats being treated as a single 

continuous seating surface by designing 

the vehicle interior so that a transverse 

horizontal line through the H-points of 

the two seats intersects surfaces of the 

vehicle interior. The model year 2006 

Ford Mustang and BMW 3 Series 

convertible are examples of vehicles 

that would qualify under this criterion. 

For purpose of the countermeasures, 

the H-point is located using the SAE 

three-dimensional H-point machine per 

SAE Recommended Practice J826, rev. 

July 1995, with the legs and leg weights 

removed. In response to the Alliance’s 

comment that measurements with the 

legs removed have not been 

demonstrated to be repeatable, the 

agency notes that its decision not to 

include the legs for the 3-dimensional 

tool when determining the H-point was 

based on three factors. First, based on 

the regulatory text adopted in the final 

rule, the need to perform this 

measurement would occur primarily in 

the rear seats of sports cars. The room 

available for installing the 3–D 

mannequin is limited in these vehicles, 

resulting in greater difficulty and 

potentially greater measurement error if 

the legs were used. Second, the agency 

eliminated the measurement box around 

the H-point and hence the need to 

determine either a minimum or 

maximum hip width. Third, the 

Alliance did not provide any 

documentation supporting its claim. 

D. Calculating the Number of 

Designated Seating Positions 

1. Procedure for Determining Number of 

DSPs 

The agency is adopting a procedure 

for determining the number of seating 

positions at a location once it is 

determined that a location has at least 

one DSP. The procedure for determining 

the number of DSPs at a seat location 

adopted today applies to passenger cars; 

buses, except school buses; and trucks 

and multipurpose passenger vehicles 

with a GVWR less than 10,000 lbs. It 

does not, however, apply to motor 

homes, police vehicles, school buses, 

ambulances, fire fighting vehicles, and 

trucks and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or 

greater.5

The agency recognizes that the usage 

needs and patterns for seat locations in 

motor homes, police vehicles, 

ambulances, fire fighting vehicles, and 

trucks and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or 

greater are different than the usage 

needs and patterns for typical light duty 

vehicles. Further, the crash data did not 

demonstrate a problem of the number of 

occupants exceeding the number of 

DSPs in such vehicles. 

Therefore, in order to provide 

manufacturers the flexibility to design 

these vehicles for their more specialized 

functions, the calculation procedure 

will not be used to determine the 

number of DSPs in those vehicles. Since 

the final rule does not reduce the 

current requirements for those vehicles, 

the agency does not anticipate any 

departures from the current industry 

practices for designating seating 

positions in these vehicles. For these 

vehicles, except school buses, the rule 

expressly permits the manufacturer of 

these vehicles to continue to designate, 

using a label in compliance with S4.4 of 

FMVSS No. 207, locations that are not 

to be used for seating while the vehicle 

is in motion. The rule excludes those 

locations from the DSP definition. For 

school buses, the existing method for 

determining the number of passenger 

seating positions, set forth in S4.1 of 

FMVSS No. 222, ‘‘School bus passenger 

seating and crash protection,’’ will 

continue to apply. 

With regard to the vehicles for which 

the procedure will apply, we are 

specifying the application of one of two 

calculations, dependent upon the 

overall value of the seating surface 

width. For adjacent seats with a 

continuous seating surface width less 

than 1400 mm (55 inches), the measured 

surface would be divided by 350 mm 

and rounded down to the nearest whole 

number to produce the number of DSPs. 

For adjacent seats with 1400 mm (55 

inches) or more of continuous seating 

surface, the measured surface would be 

divided by 450 mm and rounded down 

to the nearest whole number. Also, a 

compliance test procedure is being 

published on the NHTSA Web site 

concurrently with this final rule. 

A survey of the MY 2006 vehicle fleet 

indicated that application of the 350 

and 450 divisor values resulted in a DSP 

number consistent with the 

manufacturers’ designation. As noted 

above, the large 2–DSP seats seen in 

earlier fleets are not nearly so prevalent 

in more recent fleets. Today’s final rule 

encourages manufacturers to continue 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
58892 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

this trend. Additionally, the larger 

divisor for larger seats prevents larger 3– 

DSP seats from having to be designated 

as 4–DSP seats. The data do not 

demonstrate a problem with 3–DSP 

seats being occupied by four passengers, 

and do not demonstrate the potential for 

any benefit from such a requirement. In 

addition, for larger vehicles with longer 

bench seats (e.g., shuttle buses and 

limousines), the 450 divisor results in a 

designated seating position width that 

aligns with the width typically used by 

seating manufacturers. 

Public Citizen and Safety Research 

and Strategies questioned the use of a 

larger divisor for larger seats. Safety 

Research and Strategies suggested that 

the lack of a problem with larger seats 

may be the result of a limited data, and 

suggested that the agency consider 

usage patterns of these larger vehicles 

after second retail sale. Both of these 

commenters also suggested that use 

patterns may change in the future that 

would necessitate 3–DSPs being 

designated as 4–DSPs. 

The data relied upon by the agency 

did not indicate a problem of four 

occupants seated at 3–DSP locations. 

The vehicle population surveyed did 

not exclude used vehicles (i.e., vehicles 

after second retail sale). Commenters 

did not provide any data to indicate that 

the usage pattern in larger vehicles was 

changing in a manner as they discussed. 

Therefore, today’s final rule maintains 

the two separate calculations based on 

seating surface width. 

The calculation procedures adopted 

today specify that the seat measurement 

is divided by the appropriate factor, and 

that the resulting value is rounded 

down to produce the number of DSPs. 

Again, as already noted, the procedure 

adopted today relies on seating surface 

width as opposed to hip room. 

Rounding down results in the 

determination of the number of DSPs 

that is consistent with the vehicle 

designs of the current fleet, which as 

discussed above, provide a better 

indication of the number of DSPs. 

2. Motor Homes 

As stated above, the calculation 

procedure adopted today does not apply 

to motor homes, police vehicles, 

ambulances, fire fighting vehicles, and 

trucks and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or 

greater. This limitation was adopted 

largely in response to RVIA, which 

expressed concern that the agency’s 

proposal was inconsistent with past 

agency policy regarding the number of 

DSPs required in motor homes and with 

the practice of the motor home industry. 

RVIA noted that in the preamble to a 

final rule dated April 19, 1979, the 

agency stated: 

It is the agency’s position that a 

manufacturer must provide designated 

seating positions for the number of persons 

it advertises its vehicle will accommodate. In 

the case of a motor home, this means that if 

such a vehicle is advertised to ‘‘sleep six,’’ 

the manufacturer must assume that the six 

persons will ride in the vehicle to their 

sleeping destination and thus must designate 

six seating positions. 

(44 FR 23229, 23234). RVIA said further 

that the agency confirmed this position 

in an April 24, 1995 letter to Four 

Winds International Corporation, in 

which the agency stated: 

This will confirm that it continues to be 

NHTSA’s position that, as a minimum, there 

must be as many designated seating positions 

as there are sleeping accommodations. 

RVIA appears to have misinterpreted 

these statements to mean that a motor 

home manufacturer is only required to 

designate a number of DSPs equal to the 

number of sleeping accommodations. 

However, this has not been the agency’s 

historic interpretation. 

In the 1979 final rule, the agency was 

discussing a non-compliance 

investigation in which a manufacturer 

advertised a motor home as ‘‘sleeping 

six,’’ but only designated four seating 

positions (44 FR at 23234). In the 

preamble to that final rule, the agency 

also stated, 

Motor home manufacturers are currently 

required to designate as a seating position 

any location intended by the manufacturer to 

provide seating accommodation while the 

vehicle is in motion. 

(Id.) In the letter to Four Winds, the 

agency stressed that ‘‘as a minimum,’’ 

there must be as many designated 

seating positions as there are sleeping 

accommodations. 

At the same time, NHTSA notes that 

it does not regard its amendment of the 

definition of ‘‘designated seating 

position’’ as having any effect on the 

ability of manufacturers to use the 

option under FMVSS No. 207 of placing 

a label on a seating location stating that 

it is not to be used while the vehicle is 

in motion, instead of designating the 

location as a DSP and installing a seat 

belt. RVIA had expressed concern that 

the elimination of the language ‘‘likely 

to be used as a seating position while 

the vehicle is in motion’’ would have 

the effect of eliminating that option. In 

response to RVIA’s concerns, and in 

order to make the agency’s intention 

clearer, the final rule includes in the 

new DSP definition a specific crossreference to the provision of FMVSS No. 

207 that permits labeling of a location 

as one not to be occupied while the 

vehicle is in motion. The rule expressly 

provides that a seating location so 

labeled in the listed types of vehicles is 

not a DSP. 

E. Auxiliary Seating and Seat Belt 

Anchorages 

Today’s final rule eliminates the 

exclusion of auxiliary seats from the 

definition of ‘‘designated seating 

position.’’ Including these seats in the 

definition of ‘‘designated seating 

position’’ has the effect of subjecting 

these seats to the occupant crash 

protection requirements applicable to 

designated seating positions (e.g., seat 

belt requirements). 

When the agency originally adopted 

the DSP definition, safety belt use rates 

were well below 20 percent. The 

installation of seat belts for auxiliary 

seats, i.e., temporary and jump seats, 

was not then a high priority for the 

agency since the risk to occupants of 

those seats was a very small part of the 

problem. Now that safety belt use rates 

are much higher, the agency is focusing 

on occupants who remain unrestrained. 

This includes occupants of auxiliary 

seats, many of whom are children. 

Under today’s final rule, seats 

formerly considered to be auxiliary seats 

are required to meet all requirements in 

FMVSSs applicable to designated 

seating positions, including the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 210, ‘‘Seat 

belt assembly anchorages.’’ 

Traditionally, manufacturers have 

classified some side-facing seats in light 

vehicles as auxiliary or jump seats. The 

current test procedures for the 

anchorage strength requirements as 

specified in S5.2 of FMVSS No. 210 

were designed for forward and rear 

facing seats only. Under S5.2, a force 

must be applied in the direction in 

which the seat faces in a plane parallel 

to the longitudinal centerline of the 

vehicle. For side-facing seats, including 

auxiliary seats, the direction that the 

seat faces is perpendicular to the 

longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. 

Consequently, a force cannot be applied 

simultaneously in the direction that a 

side-facing seat faces and in a plane 

parallel to the longitudinal centerline of 

the vehicle. To permit strength testing of 

seat belt anchorages at side-facing 

designated seating positions, we are 

amending S5 of FMVSS No. 210 to 

specify that for side-facing seats, the 

specified force would be applied in the 

direction that the seat faces in a vertical 

plane perpendicular to the longitudinal 

centerline of the vehicle. 

RVIA stated that subjecting side 

facing seats to the requirements of 

FMVSS No. 210 would not be 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 58893 

6Specifically, the affected vehicle population is 

comprised of 156,974 coupes and convertibles, 

193,100 multipurpose passenger vehicles, 36,360 

light trucks. 

practicable and that the load application 

for Type 1 (lap-only) and Type 2 (lap 

and shoulder) belts should be reduced. 

RVIA stated that side impacts occur 

with less frequency and that side 

impacts generally occur at lower speeds. 

However, RVIA did not provide any 

data to support its assertion. In addition 

to side impacts, we are also concerned 

about the safety of occupants in these 

seats when they are involved in rollover 

crashes or even frontal crashes where 

the forces experienced by the seat belt 

anchorages can be considerable. 

Therefore, we are maintaining the 

loading requirements under FMVSS No. 

210. 

IV. Benefits and Costs 

In the NPRM, we tentatively 

determined that there were three ways 

in which manufacturers could respond 

to the adoption of the proposed 

amendments to DSP: (1) Add a lap and 

shoulder belt; (2) create a space between 

the seats to restrict the number of 

seating positions; and (3) design an 

impediment to reduce the likelihood of 

people sitting in between the outboard 

seats. The purpose of today’s final rule 

is not to require manufacturers to 

increase the number of DSPs in 

vehicles, but is instead to provide a 

simpler determination, both for 

manufacturers and for vehicle 

occupants, of what constitutes a DSP 

and of the number of DSPs at a given 

seating location. The costs and benefits 

estimated for the NPRM were based on 

the manufacturers’ responding to the 

proposed DSP definition through one of 

the three identified options. 

An agency survey of the MY 2006 

sport utility vehicle fleet revealed that 

manufacturers have substantially 

addressed the problems with wide 2- 

DSP seats by reducing the size of such 

seats. Reduced seat size provides a 

clearer indication to occupants of the 

number of DSPs at those locations. 

Because manufacturers are currently 

addressing the issues that were of 

concern in the NPRM, the costs and 

benefits of today’s final rule are less 

than those estimated for the NPRM. 

The vehicles that will need a redesign 

in response to today’s final rule are 

primarily sport coupes and convertibles 

with a 2-DSP second row, a limited 

number of multipurpose passenger 

vehicles with 2-DSP third row seats, and 

a truck that was identified as having an 

auxiliary seat. The total number of 

vehicles affected is approximately 

386,434.6

The cost to comply with today’s final 

rule ranges from $426,000 to 

$17,833,000. The lower end of this 

range is the cost if manufacturers were 

to install an impediment in affected 

passenger cars as specified in § 571.10 

and decrease seat surface width in 

affected light trucks. We expect that this 

will be the most likely response from 

manufacturers. The upper end of this 

range is the cost if manufacturers were 

to redesign in order to increase the 

number of DSPs, which would require 

the installation of a lap/shoulder belt for 

the additional position. Increasing the 

number of DSPs is a very unlikely 

response. The number of DSPs in a 

vehicle is closely tied to vehicle 

packaging and marketing. Increasing the 

number of DSPs would likely have 

implications beyond the cost of 

providing crash protection at the new 

DSP location. 

The main benefit of this final rule is 

the increased clarity and certainty 

provided by the revised definition and 

the newly established procedure for 

determining the number of DSPs at a 

seat location. Today’s final rule 

reinforces vehicle consumer awareness 

as to the number of DSPs in a vehicle. 

Again, the intent of today’s final rule is 

not to require manufacturers to increase 

the number of DSPs in their vehicles. 

However, if manufacturers were to 

increase the number of DSPs in the 

affected vehicle population, we estimate 

that one life would be saved. Further 

discussion on the costs and benefits of 

today’s final rule are provided in the 

regulatory impact analysis, which is in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

Under 1 CFR part 51, Incorporation by 

Reference, the agency must declare that 

the Director of the Federal Register has 

approved incorporation by reference of 

a publication into a regulation. In the 

NPRM, the agency proposed to amend 

the general incorporation by reference 

provision at § 571.5, Matters 

incorporated by reference, to include a 

centralized index of all of the 

publications incorporated into § 571. 

This was not intended to update such 

references, but merely to centralize all 

of the incorporation by references 

contained in § 571. However, due to 

delays in this rulemaking, we are 

delaying the creation of a complete 

centralized index. Instead, we are 

updating the existing information in 

§ 571.5 to include updated language in 

regard to incorporation of materials by 

reference, including new procedures for 

retrieving materials from the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

and a new format indicating the sections 

and paragraphs where incorporated 

materials are referenced. Additionally, 

we are including in that section all of 

the materials referenced in this 

rulemaking. Some portions of 571.3 and 

571.210 were also amended to include 

references to the centralized 

incorporation by reference table. At a 

future date, we intend to complete the 

centralized incorporation by reference 

as envisioned in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

VI. Effective Date 

The definition of ‘‘designated seating 

position’’ adopted in this document 

clarifies the existing definition and is 

not expected to have a substantial 

impact on current vehicle design. The 

degree to which seat designs exhibit the 

characteristics that gave rise to the 

agency’s concerns has lessened in the 

current fleet. The average width of a 2– 

DSP seat in station wagons, and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles 

(including sport utility vehicles) has 

decreased from 1,118 mm for MY 2001 

vehicles to 979 mm for MY 2006 

vehicles. Manufacturers are either 

providing 3–DSPs or reducing the width 

of the seating area in order to more 

accurately reflect the intended 

occupancy. 

However, the inclusion of auxiliary 

seats and the established procedure for 

determining the number of DSPs will 

require minor redesign of a small 

population of vehicles. To provide 

manufacturers the opportunity to make 

such redesigns, the agency is providing 

a lead time of two years prior to the 

application of the revised definition and 

newly established procedure. 

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
58894 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budget impact 

of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This document was determined to be 

significant under E.O. 12866 and was 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget under E.O. 12866. Further, 

the agency has prepared a regulatory 

evaluation as required by the DOT 

policies and procedures. A copy of that 

evaluation has been placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. The impacts 

of this final rule are summarized above 

in the section entitled ‘‘Benefits and 

costs.’’ 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

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

NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this 

action on small entities. I hereby certify 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

The following is the agency’s 

statement providing the factual basis for 

the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). This 

rule directly affects motor vehicle 

manufacturers and motor vehicle seat 

manufacturers. According to the size 

standards of the Small Business 

Association (at 13 CFR part 121.601), 

the size standard for manufacturers of 

‘‘Automobile Manufacturing’’ (NAICS 

Code 336111) is 1,000 employees or 

fewer. Manufacturers of vehicle seats 

are considered manufacturers of ‘‘Motor 

Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim 

Manufacturing’’ (NAICS Code 336360). 

The size standard for NAICS Code 

336360 is 500 employees or fewer. 

The majority of motor vehicle 

manufacturers do not qualify as a small 

business. These manufacturers, along 

with manufacturers that do qualify as a 

small business, would be able to 

maintain the current number of DSPs 

through the design changes outlined in 

the definition. The definition does not 

require vehicles to have a certain 

number of designated seating positions, 

but provides an objective metric to 

define the number of DSPs for a given 

seat. 

Most of the seat manufacturers have 

500 or fewer employees. But again, if 

design changes are required to maintain 

a seat’s 2–DSP designation, this can be 

done by designing seats in accordance 

with the above listed specifications at a 

minimal cost per seat. Accordingly, 

there will be no significant economic 

impact on small businesses, small 

organizations, or small governmental 

units by these amendments. For these 

reasons, the agency has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis. 

C. Executive Order No. 13132 

NHTSA has examined today’s final 

rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism (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 rule does not have federalism 

implications because the rule does 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 

rule. 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 

unnecessary. 

We note that the definition and 

identification of a ‘‘designated seating 

position’’ is integral to several FMVSSs, 

including FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS 

No. 110, ‘‘Tire and rim selection.’’ As 

such, a State definition of ‘‘designated 

seating position’’ would be subject to 

the express preemption clause in 

§ 30103(b). However, the agency is not 

aware of any State definition for that 

term, as it applies to the performance of 

vehicles regulated under the FMVSSs. 

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 discussed the issue of 

preemption and sought comment from 

all stakeholders through publication of 

the proposed rule in the Federal 

Register. No State or local governmental 

entities submitted any comments to the 

docket for the proposed rule. 

Additionally, officials at NHTSA 

contacted organizations representing the 

interests of State and local governments 

and officials about this rulemaking and 

the issue of preemption. The National 

Conference of State Legislatures 

responded, indicating that it did not 

have any comments. 

Public Citizen argued in its comment 

that the agency lacks the authority to 

preempt State tort law actions. This 

final rule does not foreclose all such 

actions. It does identify circumstances 

in which the agency believes State tort 

actions would conflict with the agency’s 

definition of ‘‘designated seating 

position’’ and hinder or frustrate the 

accomplishment of the purposes of the 

FMVSSs, so that specific claims would 

be preempted. Public Citizen also 

suggested that there is no reason to 

believe that there would be a conflict. 

We differ because NHTSA believes that 

comfort and convenience significantly 

affect the rate of seat belt use and in that 

belief have in the past adopted 

requirements to increase comfort and 

convenience. One of the oldest such 

requirements is the requirement for 

integral lap and shoulder belts. It was 

adopted in part to reduce the tangle of 

belts then confronting vehicle 

occupants. 

Our views regarding the preemptive 

effect of the amended definition remain 

largely as we stated them in the 

proposal. As noted above, the definition 

of ‘‘designated seating position’’ in 

section 571.3 identifies circumstances, 

i.e., conflicting determinations in State 

tort law as to whether a location in a 

motor vehicle is or ought to be a 

designated seating position, that would 

prevent, hinder or frustrate the 

accomplishment of the purposes of the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

in Part 571 of this title. A tort law 

judgment premised on there being more 

designated seating positions in a motor 

vehicle than the number contemplated 

in that definition could have a negative 

safety impact. Such a judgment would 

tend to induce manufacturers to equip 

a seating location with an excessive 

number of safety belts since the Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards require 

that each designated seating position be 

equipped with one or more safety belts. 

Given that seat belt comfort and 

convenience continue to be important 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 58895 

7NHTSA (2003), Initiatives to Address Safety Belt 

Use. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ 

people/injury/SafetyBelt/OPIPT_FinalRpt_07-17- 

03.html. 

factors affecting the level of safety belt 

use, as evidenced by the agency’s 

adoption of requirements to improve 

comfort and convenience and by its 

2003 report on improving seat belt use,7

NHTSA believes the installation of an 

excessive number of safety belts would 

decrease, not increase, safety. We expect 

that occupants would be less likely to 

use safety belts because limited space 

would make such use difficult or 

uncomfortable. For example, four safety 

belts could be installed on a seat that 

NHTSA believes is appropriate for three 

occupants. Where the seat is actually 

occupied by three occupants, in order to 

use the safety belts in the location 

where they are installed, some of the 

occupants may sit uncomfortably close 

to another occupant and/or the side of 

the vehicle. If the occupants attempt to 

sit in locations where there is more 

space between them, the belts will not 

be properly aligned with the occupants’ 

bodies, and they might end up sitting on 

buckles. This could have the effect of 

making it less likely that an occupant 

will use his or her respective belt 

because the belt would be located in an 

uncomfortable and/or inconvenient 

location. The potential for such a 

scenario would frustrate the efforts of 

this agency to base the number of 

designated seating positions, and thus 

the number of safety belts, on 

reasonably anticipated occupancy 

levels. This would hamper our efforts to 

promote high safety belt use rates. 

To ensure that there is no ambiguity 

or doubt about this, the agency has 

included such a provision in the text of 

this final rule, so that its position 

regarding preemptive effect is clear. 

While NHTSA has outlined some 

potential State requirements that may be 

preempted, it is conceivable that 

additional such conflicts may become 

clear through subsequent experience 

with today’s regulation. NHTSA may 

opine on such conflicts in the future, if 

warranted. See id. at 883–86. 

D. Executive Order 12988 

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 

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 

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 or petition for review of 

this regulation in court. 

E. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action will not have any significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This amendment does not contain any 

collection of information requirements 

requiring review under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13). 

G. 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.’’ 

Unlike the proposed definition of 

‘‘designated seating position,’’ today’s 

final rule is not based on voluntary 

consensus standards. As noted above, 

the final rule avoids the unintended 

consequences of the proposal, i.e., 

increasing the calculated vehicle seating 

capacity. In developing the final rule, 

the agency reviewed various voluntary 

consensus standards for determining 

seating positions. The measurement 

procedure adopted today incorporates 

SAE J826 ‘‘Devices for use in Defining 

and Measuring Vehicle Seating 

Accommodations,’’ revised July 1995. 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). This rulemaking will not result in 

expenditures by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector in excess of $100 million 

annually. 

I. Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under E.O. 

12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health, or safety risk that 

NHTSA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

we must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by us. 

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 

because it is not economically 

significant as defined in E.O. 12866 and 

does not involve decisions based on 

environmental, health, or safety risks 

that disproportionately affect children. 

The final rule amends the definition of 

‘‘designated seating position.’’ 

J. 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. 

K. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://docketsinfo.dot.gov/. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571 

Imports, Incorporation by reference, 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires. 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
58896 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 

follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

of Title 49 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 571.3 is amended by 

revising the definitions of ‘‘designated 

seating position,’’ ‘‘5th percentile adult 

female,’’ ‘‘H-point,’’ ‘‘Seating reference 

point,’’ ‘‘Torso line,’’ and ‘‘95th 

percentile adult male’’ in paragraph (b) 

and adding a new paragraph (c) to read 

as follows: 

§ 571.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Designated seating position means: 

(1) For vehicles manufactured prior to 

September 1, 2010, any plan view 

location capable of accommodating a 

person at least as large as a 5th 

percentile adult female, if the overall 

seat configuration and design and 

vehicle design is such that the position 

is likely to be used as a seating position 

while the vehicle is in motion, except 

for auxiliary seating accommodations 

such as temporary or folding jump seats. 

Any bench or split-bench seat in a 

passenger car, truck or multipurpose 

passenger vehicle with a GVWR less 

than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), 

having greater than 127 centimeters (50 

inches) of hip room (measured in 

accordance with Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice 

J1100a, revised September 1975, ‘‘Motor 

Vehicle Dimensions’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 571.5), shall have not 

less than three designated seating 

positions, unless the seat design or 

vehicle design is such that the center 

position cannot be used for seating. For 

the sole purpose of determining the 

classification of any vehicle sold or 

introduced into interstate commerce for 

purposes that include carrying students 

to and from school or related events, 

any location in such vehicle intended 

for securement of an occupied 

wheelchair during vehicle operation 

shall be regarded as four designated 

seating positions. 

(2) For vehicles manufactured on and 

after September 1, 2010, designated 

seating position means a seat location 

that has a seating surface width, as 

described in § 571.10(c) of this part, of 

at least 330 mm (13 inches). The 

number of designated seating positions 

at a seat location is determined 

according to the procedure set forth in 

§ 571.10(b) of this part. However, for 

trucks and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 

rating greater than 10,000 lbs, police 

vehicles as defined in S7 of FMVSS No. 

208, firefighting vehicles, ambulances, 

and motor homes, a seating location that 

is labeled in accordance with S4.4 of 

FMVSS No. 207 will not be considered 

a designated seating position. For the 

sole purpose of determining the 

classification of any vehicle sold or 

introduced into interstate commerce for 

purposes that include carrying students 

to and from school or related events, 

any location in such a vehicle intended 

for securement of an occupied 

wheelchair during vehicle operation is 

regarded as four designated seating 

positions. 

* * * * * 

5th percentile adult female means a 

person possessing the dimensions and 

weight of the 5th percentile adult female 

specified for the total age group in 

‘‘Weight, Height, and Selected Body 

Dimensions of Adults: United States— 

1960–1962,’’ first published as Public 

Health Service Publication No. 1000 

Series 11–No. 8, June 1965 and 

republished as DHEW Publication No. 

(HRA) 76–1074 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 571.5). 

* * * * * 

H-Point means the pivot center of the 

torso and thigh on the threedimensional device used in defining 

and measuring vehicle seating 

accommodation, as defined in Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE) 

Recommended Practice J1100, revised 

February 2001, ‘‘Motor Vehicle 

Dimensions’’ (incorporated by reference, 

see § 571.5). 

* * * * * 

Seating reference point (SgRP) means 

the unique design H-point, as defined in 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 

Recommended Practice J1100, revised 

June 1984, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Dimensions’’ 

(incorporated by reference, see § 571.5), 

which: 

(1) Establishes the rearmost normal 

design driving or riding position of each 

designated seating position, which 

includes consideration of all modes of 

adjustment, horizontal, vertical, and tilt, 

in a vehicle; 

(2) Has X, Y, and Z coordinates, as 

defined in Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice 

J1100, revised June 1984, ‘‘Motor 

Vehicle Dimensions’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 571.5), established 

relative to the designed vehicle 

structure; 

(3) Simulates the position of the pivot 

center of the human torso and thigh; 

and 

(4) Is the reference point employed to 

position the two-dimensional drafting 

template with the 95th percentile leg 

described in Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) Standard J826, revised 

May 1987, ‘‘Devices for Use in Defining 

and Measuring Vehicle Seating 

Accommodation’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 571.5), or, if the drafting 

template with the 95th percentile leg 

cannot be positioned in the seating 

position, is located with the seat in its 

most rearward adjustment position. 

* * * * * 

Torso line means the line connecting 

the ‘‘H’’ point and the shoulder 

reference point as defined in Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard 

J787b, revised September 1966, ‘‘Motor 

Vehicle Seat Belt Anchorage’’ 

(incorporated by reference, see § 571.5). 

* * * * * 

95th percentile adult male means a 

person possessing the dimensions and 

weight of the 95th percentile adult male 

specified ‘‘Weight, Height, and Selected 

Body Dimensions of Adults: United 

States—1960–1962,’’ first published as 

Public Health Service Publication No. 

1000 Series 11-No. 8, June 1965 and 

republished as DHEW Publication No. 

(HRA) 76–1074 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 571.5). 

* * * * * 

(c) Any State requirement, including 

any determination under State tort law 

premised on there being more 

designated seating positions in a motor 

vehicle than the number contemplated 

in the definition of ‘‘designated seating 

position’’ in paragraph (b) of this section 

would prevent, hinder or frustrate the 

accomplishment of the purposes of the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

in Part 571 of this title, and is thus 

preempted by this regulation. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 571.5 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference 

(a) Documents listed in this section 

and additional documents referred to in 

subpart B of this part have been 

incorporated by reference into this part. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. For materials subject to 

change, only the specific version 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register and specified in this section or 

in subpart B of this part are 

incorporated. A notice of any change in 

these materials will be published in the 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 58897 

Federal Register. Anyone may inspect 

copies at the NHTSA Reading Room, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, Washington, 

DC 20590 and at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

this material at NARA, call 202–741– 

6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. Approved materials 

are available from the sources indicated 

in paragraph (b) of this section. 

(b) The materials approved for 

incorporation by reference in this part 

and the sections and paragraphs (if 

applicable) affected include, but are not 

limited to, as follows: 

American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC), 1 Davis Dr., P.O. Box 12215, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27709 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................

American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1700 North Moore St., Suite 1540, Arlington, VA 22209–1903 ........................... ............................

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428–2959 ................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................

General Services Administration (GSA), Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 

20402 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................

Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES), 120 Wall St., 7th Floor, New York, NY 10005 ..................................... ............................

Department of Defense, DODSSP Standardization Document Order Desk, 700 Robbins Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19111–5098 .. ............................

National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), National Division for Health Statistics, Division of 

Data Services, Hyattsville, MD 20782. Phone: 1–800–232–4636; Web: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs ............................................ ............................

‘‘Weight, Height, and Selected Body Dimensions of Adults: United States—1960–1962,’’ first published as Public Health Service Publication No. 1000 Series 11-No. 8, June 1965 and republished as DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 76–1074 ................ 571.3 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, DOT–NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 

Ave, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE), 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15096. Phone: 1–724– 

776–4841; Web: http://www.sae.org ............................................................................................................................................ ............................

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J787b, revised September 1966, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Anchorage’’ ....... 571.3

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J826, revised May 1987, ‘‘Devices for Use in Defining and Measuring Vehicle Seating Accommodation’’ ....................................................................................................................................................... 571.3; 571.210 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1100a, revised September 1975, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Dimensions’’ ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 571.3 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1100, revised June 1984, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Dimensions’’ ....... 571.3; 571.210 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1100, revised February 2001, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Dimensions’’ 571.3 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Surface Vehicle Standard J826, revised July 1995, ‘‘Devices for Use in Defining and 

Measuring Vehicle Seating Accommodation’’ .............................................................................................................................. 571.10 

United Nations, Conference Services Division, Distribution and Sales Section, Office C.115–1, Palais des Nations, CH–1211, 

Geneva 10, Switzerland. Copies of Regulations also are available on the ECE internet Web site: www.unece.org/trans/ 

main/wp29/wp29regs.html.

■ 4. Section 571.10 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 571.10 Designation of Seating Positions. 

(a) Application. This section applies 

to passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, and buses 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2010. However, paragraph (b) of this 

section does not apply to trucks and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 

gross vehicle weight rating greater than 

10,000 lbs, school buses, police vehicles 

as defined in S7 of Standard No. 208 (49 

CFR 571.208), firefighting vehicles, 

ambulances, or motor homes. To 

determine the number of passenger 

seating positions in school buses, see 

S4.1 of Standard No. 222 (49 CFR 

571.222). 

(b) Number of designated seating 

positions. The formula for calculating 

the number of designated seating 

positions (N) for any seat location with 

a seating surface width greater than 330 

mm (13 inches) is as follows: 

(1) For seat locations with a seating 

surface width, as described in paragraph 

(d), of less than 1400 mm (55.2 inches): 

N = [Seating surface width (in mm)/350] 

round down to the nearest whole 

number; 

(2) For seat locations with a seating 

surface width, as described in paragraph 

(d), greater than or equal to 1400 mm 

(55.2 inches): N = [Seating surface width 

(in mm)/450] round down to the nearest 

whole number. 

(c) Seating surface measurement. (1) 

As used in this section, ‘‘seating surface 

width’’ is the maximum width of a 

seating surface measured in a zone 

extending from a transverse vertical 

plane 150 mm (5.9 inches) behind the 

front leading surface of that seating 

surface to a transverse vertical plane 250 

mm (9.8 inches) behind that front 

leading surface, measured horizontally 

and longitudinally. 

(2) Adjacent seating surfaces are 

considered to form a single, continuous 

seating surface whose overall width is 

measured as specified in (c)(1) of this 

section, unless 

(i) The seating surfaces are separated 

by: 

(A) A fixed trimmed surface whose 

top surface is unpadded and that has a 

width not less than 140 mm (5.5 

inches), as measured in each transverse 

vertical plane within that measurement 

zone, or 

(B) A void whose cross section in 

each transverse vertical plane within 

that measurement zone is a rectangle 

that is not less than 140 mm (5.5 inches) 

wide and not less than 140 mm (5.5 

inches) deep. The top edge of the cross 

section in any such plane is congruent 

with the transverse horizontal line that 

intersects the lowest point on the 

portion of the top profile of the seating 

surfaces that lie within that plane, or 

(ii) Interior trim interrupts the 

measurement of the nominal hip room 

of the seating surfaces, measured 

laterally along the ‘‘X’’ plane through 

the H-point. For purposes of this 

paragraph, the H-point is located using 

the SAE three-dimensional H-point 

machine per Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) Surface Vehicle 

Standard J826, revised July 1995, 

‘‘Devices for Use in Defining and 

Measuring Vehicle Seating 

Accommodation’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see section 571.5) with the 

legs and leg weights removed, or 

(iii) The seating surfaces are adjacent 

outboard seats, and the lateral distance 

between any point on the seat cushion 

of one seat and any point on the seat 

cushion of the other seat is not less than 

140 mm (5.5 inches). 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
58898 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) Folding, removable, and adjustable 

seats are measured in the configuration 

that results in the single largest 

maximum seating surface width. 

■ 5. Section 571.210 is amended by 

revising S4.3.2, S5.1, and the 

introductory text of S5.2 to read as 

follows: 

§ 571.210 Standard No. 210; Seat belt 

assembly anchorages 

* * * * * 

S4.3.2 Seat belt anchorages for the 

upper torso portion of Type 2 seat belt 

assemblies. Adjust the seat to its full 

rearward and downward position and 

adjust the seat back to its most upright 

position. With the seat and seat back so 

positioned, as specified by subsection 

(a) or (b) of this section, the upper end 

of the upper torso restraint shall be 

located within the acceptable range 

shown in Figure 1, with reference to a 

two-dimensional drafting template 

described in Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) Standard J826, revised 

May 1987, ‘‘Devices for Use in Defining 

and Measuring Vehicle Seating 

Accommodation’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 571.5). The template’s 

‘‘H’’ point shall be at the design ‘‘H’’ 

point of the seat for its full rearward and 

full downward position, as defined in 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 

Recommended Practice J1100, revised 

June 1984, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Dimensions’’ 

(incorporated by reference, see § 571.5), 

and the template’s torso line shall be at 

the same angle from the vertical as the 

seat back. 

(a) For fixed anchorages, compliance 

with this section shall be determined at 

the vertical centerline of the bolt holes 

or, for designs using another means of 

attachment to the vehicle structure, at 

the centroid of such means. 

(b) For adjustable anchorages, 

compliance with this section shall be 

determined at the midpoint of the range 

of all adjustment positions. 

* * * * * 

S5.1 Seats with Type 1 or Type 2 

seat belt anchorages. With the seat in its 

rearmost position, apply a force of 

22,241 N in the direction in which the 

seat faces to a pelvic body block as 

described in Figure 2A, in a plane 

parallel to the longitudinal centerline of 

the vehicle for forward and rear facing 

seats, and in a plane perpendicular to 

the longitudinal centerline of the 

vehicle for side facing seats, with an 

initial force application angle of not less 

than 5 degrees or more than 15 degrees 

above the horizontal. Apply the force at 

the onset rate of not more than 222,411 

N per second. Attain the 22,241 N force 

in not more than 30 seconds and 

maintain it for 10 seconds. At the 

manufacturer’s option, the pelvic body 

block described in Figure 2B may be 

substituted for the pelvic body block 

described in Figure 2A to apply the 

specified force to the center set(s) of 

anchorages for any group of three or 

more sets of anchorages that are 

simultaneously loaded in accordance 

with S4.2.4 of this standard. 

S5.2 Seats with Type 2 or automatic 

seat belt anchorages. With the seat in its 

rearmost position, apply forces of 

13,345 N in the direction in which the 

seat faces simultaneously to a pelvic 

body block, as described in Figure 2A, 

and an upper torso body block, as 

described in Figure 3, in a plane parallel 

to the longitudinal centerline of the 

vehicle for forward and rear facing seats, 

and in a plane perpendicular to the 

longitudinal centerline of the vehicle for 

side facing seats, with an initial force 

application angle of not less than 5 

degrees nor more than 15 degrees above 

the horizontal. Apply the forces at the 

onset rate of not more than 133,447 N 

per second. Attain the 13,345 N force in 

not more than 30 seconds and maintain 

it for 10 seconds. At the manufacturer’s 

option, the pelvic body block described 

in Figure 2B may be substituted for the 

pelvic body block described in Figure 

2A to apply the specified force to the 

center set(s) of anchorages for any group 

of three or more sets of anchorages that 

are simultaneously loaded in 

accordance with S4.2.4 of this standard. 

* * * * * 

Issued: October 1, 2008. 

David Kelly, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–23577 Filed 10–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 070717342–7713–02] 

RIN 0648–XJ86 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean 

Quahog Fisheries; Suspension of 

Minimum Atlantic Surfclam Size Limit 

for Fishing Year 2009 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; suspension of 

the Atlantic surfclam minimum size 

limit. 

SUMMARY: NMFS suspends the 

minimum size limit of 4.75 inches (120 

mm) for Atlantic surfclams for the 2009 

fishing year. This action is taken under 

the authority of the implementing 

regulations for this fishery, which allow 

for the annual suspension of the 

minimum size limit based upon set 

criteria. The intended effect is to relieve 

the industry from a regulatory burden 

that is not necessary, as the majority of 

surfclams harvested are larger than the 

minimum size limit. 

DATES: Effective January 1, 2009, 

through December 31, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Written inquiries may be 

sent to; Regional Administrator, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Northeast Regional Office, One 

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 

01930–2298. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Stern, Fishery Management 

Specialist, (978) 281–9177; fax (978) 

281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

648.72(c) of the regulations 

implementing the Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) for the Atlantic Surfclam 

and Ocean Quahog Fisheries allows the 

Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS 

(Regional Administrator) to suspend 

annually, by publication of a 

notification in the Federal Register, the 

minimum size limit for Atlantic 

surfclams. This action may be taken 

unless discard, catch, and biological 

sampling data indicate that 30 percent 

of the Atlantic surfclam resource is 

smaller than 4.75 inches (120 mm) and 

the overall reduced size is not 

attributable to harvest from beds where 

growth of the individual clams has been 

reduced because of density-dependent 

factors. 

At its June 2008 meeting, the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council 

voted to recommend that the Regional 

Administrator suspend the minimum 

size limit for the 2009 fishing year. In 

accordance with the provisions of the 

FMP, the Regional Administrator will 

publish the suspension of the surfclam 

minimum size if the proportion of 

undersized surfclams is under 30 

percent of the total surfclam landings 

for each fishing year. 

Commercial surfclam data for 2008 

were analyzed to determine the 

percentage of surfclams that were 

smaller than the minimum size 

requirement. The analysis indicated that 

2.83–percent of the overall commercial 

landings were composed of surfclams 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES