[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51076-51090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20644]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0093]
RIN 2127-AL37
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012
directs NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to amend Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,''
to require a seat belt use warning system for rear seats. NHTSA
initiated a rulemaking proceeding in 2013, and as it continues with
this proceeding NHTSA is seeking public comment on a variety of issues
related to a requirement for a rear seat belt warning system. NHTSA
seeks comment on, among other things, potential requirements for such
systems, the vehicles to which they should apply, their effectiveness,
the likely consumer acceptance, and the associated costs and benefits.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to be received not
later than November 26, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone: (202) 366-9826.
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://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to the Docket at the address
given above. When you send a comment containing information claimed to
be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may contact Ms. Carla Rush, Office
of Crashworthiness Standards, Telephone: 202-366-4583, Facsimile: 202-
493-2739 or Mr. John Piazza, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone: 202-
366-2992, Facsimile: 202-366-3820. You may
[[Page 51077]]
send mail to these officials at: The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary......................................... 4
II. Background............................................... 7
III. Regulatory and Legislative History...................... 13
IV. NHTSA Research on Effectiveness and Acceptance of Seat 18
Belt Warnings...............................................
V. NHTSA's Statutory Authority............................... 21
VI. Issues on Which NHTSA Seeks Information From the Public.. 22
A. Potential Specifications for a Required Rear Belt 22
Warning System..........................................
B. Applicability......................................... 39
C. Effectiveness......................................... 40
D. Consumer Acceptance................................... 43
E. Technological and Economic Feasibility................ 45
F. Benefits and Costs.................................... 46
G. Safety Act Criteria................................... 46
H. Non-Regulatory Alternatives........................... 46
I. Removing the Driver's Seat Belt Warning Audible Signal 47
Duration Upper Limit....................................
VII. Regulatory Notices...................................... 48
VIII. Public Comment......................................... 49
I. Executive Summary
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012 (MAP-
21) directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to amend Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' to
require a seat belt use warning system for rear seats. As it continues
with this proceeding, NHTSA is seeking comment on a variety of issues
related to a potential requirement for a rear seat belt warning system.
Using a seat belt is one of the most effective actions a motor
vehicle occupant can take to prevent death and injury in a crash. Seat
belts are effective in most types of crashes. Research has found that
seat belts greatly reduce the risk of fatal and non-fatal injuries,
compared to the risk faced by unrestrained occupants. Unbelted
occupants are overrepresented in fatal crashes. For rear seat
occupants, seat belts reduce the risk of fatality by 55 percent (for
passenger cars) and 74 percent (for light trucks and vans).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Donna Glassbrenner & Marc Starnes. 2009. Lives Saved
Calculations for Seat Belts and Frontal Air Bags. DOT HS 811 206.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, pp. 18-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although seat belt use has steadily increased over the past few
decades, usage rates for rear belts have consistently been below those
for the front seats. According to data from NHTSA's National Occupant
Protection Use Survey, from 2006 to 2017, seat belt use was
consistently lower in rear seats than in front seats, with the lowest
difference of 6.2 percent in 2007 and the highest difference of 15.6
percent in 2006. Most recently, in 2017, front seat belt use was 89.7
percent, while rear seat belt use was only 75.4 percent, a difference
of 14.3 percent.
Seat belt warning systems encourage seat belt use by reminding
unbuckled occupants to fasten their belts and/or by informing the
driver that an occupant is unbelted, so that the driver can request the
unbelted occupant to fasten their seat belt. FMVSS No. 208 requires a
seat belt warning system for the driver's seat, but not other seating
positions. Most currently-produced vehicles also have a seat belt
warning for the front outboard passenger seat, although FMVSS No. 208
does not require this. About 13 percent of model year (MY) 2019
vehicles sold in the United States came equipped with a rear seat belt
warning system. Volvo, Toyota, Mazda, Ford and Jaguar Land Rover offer
vehicles for sale in the U.S. with rear seat belt warning systems. All
of those manufacturers' rear seat belt warning systems use a display
that is visible to the driver and indicates which rear seat belts are
in use, as well as employing a change-of-status reminder that has
visual and audible components.
Euro New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) \2\ awards points for front
and rear seat belt reminder systems (SBRSs) as part of their Safety
Assist score. Their assessment protocol dictates the requirements for
the activation and duration of the warning signals for front and rear
seats including a change of status warning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Euro NCAP provides consumer information on the safety of new
cars. Euro NCAP uses a five-star safety rating system to help
consumers, their families and businesses compare vehicles more
easily and to help them identify the safest choice for their needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting in September 2019, the Economic Commission for Europe
(ECE) Regulation No. 16 will require a rear seat belt warning. This
includes, among other things, a visual warning indicating any rear
seating position in which a seat belt is unfastened. It also includes
an audiovisual change-in-status warning.
In 2007, Public Citizen and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
petitioned NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 208 to require a seat belt warning
system for rear seats on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger
vehicles (MPVs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. The petitioners stated that rear
seat belt warnings would save hundreds of lives each year and that a
large percentage of the lives saved would be children. In 2010, the
agency published a Request for Comments (RFC) on the petition. The RFC
discussed the agency's research and findings regarding rear seat belt
warnings and solicited comments.
In 2012, Congress passed MAP-21. That law requires DOT to initiate
a rulemaking proceeding to amend FMVSS No. 208 to provide a safety belt
use warning system for designated seating positions in the rear seat.
It directs the Secretary to either issue a final rule, or, if the
Secretary determines that such an amendment does not meet the
requirements and considerations of 49 U.S.C. 30111,\3\ to submit a
report to Congress describing the reasons for not prescribing such a
standard. (MAP-21 also repeals a statutory provision that prohibited
NHTSA from requiring or specifying as a compliance option an audible
seat belt warning lasting longer than 8 seconds.) In accordance with
MAP-21, in early 2013, NHTSA initiated a rulemaking proceeding when it
submitted for public comment a
[[Page 51078]]
proposal to undertake a study regarding the effectiveness of existing
rear seat belt warning systems. This study, which was completed in
2015, involved a telephone survey of the drivers of vehicles with and
without rear seat belt warning systems. The study found that overall,
drivers of vehicles with a rear seat belt warning system were satisfied
with the system and noticed an increase in rear seat belt use. For
example, approximately 80 percent of drivers of vehicles with a rear
seat belt warning were satisfied with the system and 65 percent of
drivers of vehicles equipped with rear seat belt reminders reported
that the rear seat belt reminder made it easier to encourage rear seat
passengers to buckle up.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This requires, among other things, that a federal motor
vehicle safety standard be practicable, meet the need for motor
vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms.
\4\ Below we seek comment on possible sample selection bias
(because these survey respondents were drivers of vehicles equipped
with rear seat belt warning systems).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has granted Public Citizen and Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety's petition. In accordance with that grant and continuing with
the proceeding that MAP-21 required to be initiated, the agency is
publishing this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In it, we seek
comment on a variety of issues related to a requirement for a rear seat
belt warning system, including potential requirements for such systems,
the vehicles to which they should apply, their effectiveness, the
likely consumer acceptance, and the associated costs and benefits. This
document also provides relevant background information, such as up-to-
date information on rear seat belt warning systems that are currently
available on some new motor vehicles. The document also seeks comment
on removing the 8-second maximum duration for the driver's seat belt
warning specified in FMVSS No. 208, S7.3; this amendment would reflect
MAP-21's repeal of the statutory limitation that was the basis for this
provision.
II. Background
Section 31503 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141) directs the Secretary \5\ of
Transportation to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to amend Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash
protection'' (49 CFR 571.208) to require a seat belt use warning system
for rear seats.\6\ As it continues with this proceeding, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) seeks comment on a
variety of issues related to a requirement for a rear seat belt warning
system, including potential requirements for such systems, the vehicles
to which they should apply, their effectiveness, the likely consumer
acceptance, and the associated costs and benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Authority has been delegated to NHTSA.
\6\ Seat belt use warning systems may also be referred to in
this document as seat belt ``warning systems'' or seat belt
``reminder'' systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using a seat belt is one of the most effective actions a motor
vehicle occupant can take to prevent death and injury in a crash.\7\
Seat belts protect occupants in various ways. They prevent occupants
from being ejected from the vehicle; provide ``ride-down'' by gradually
decelerating the occupant as the vehicle deforms and absorbs energy;
and reduce the occurrence of occupant contact with harmful interior
surfaces and other occupants.\8\ Seat belts are effective in most types
of crashes. Research has found that seat belts greatly reduce the risk
of fatal and non-fatal injuries, compared to the risk faced by
unrestrained occupants. Unbelted occupants are overrepresented in fatal
crashes.\9\ Seat belts reduce the risk of fatality for rear outboard
occupants by 54 percent (passenger cars) and 75 percent (light trucks
and vans), and for center occupants, by 58 percent (passenger cars) and
75 percent (light trucks and vans).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 68 FR 46262 (Aug. 5, 2003). See also Buckling Up:
Technologies to Increase Seat Belt Use. Special Report 278 at 18,
Committee for the Safety Belt Technology Study, Transportation
Research Board of The National Academies (2003) [hereinafter
Transportation Research Board Study].
\8\ Charles J. Kahane. 2015. Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety
Technologies and Associated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards,
1960 to 2012--Passenger Cars and LTVs--With Reviews of 26 FMVSS and
the Effectiveness of Their Associated Safety Technologies in
Reducing Fatalities, Injuries, and Crashes. DOT HS 812 069.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, p. 89.
\9\ Mark Freedman et al. 2009. Effectiveness and Acceptance of
Enhanced Seat Belt Reminder Systems: Characteristics of Optimal
Reminder Systems, Final Report. DOT HS 811 097. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration [hereinafter DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study], p. 1.
\10\ Charles J. Kahane. 2017. Fatality Reduction by Seat Belts
in the Center Rear Seat and Comparison of Occupants' Relative
Fatality Risk at Various Seating Positions. DOT HS 812 369.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, pp. 18-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51079]]
Although seat belt use has steadily increased over the past few
decades, usage rates for rear belts have consistently fallen below
those for the front seats. According to data from NHTSA's National
Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), from 2006 to 2017, seat belt
use was lower in the rear seat than in the front seat, ranging from a
difference of 6.2 percent in 2007 (76.3% vs. 82.5%) to 15.6 percent in
2006 (64.8% vs. 80.4%).\11\ Front seat belt use in 2017 reached 89.7
percent. Rear seat belt use in 2017, however, was 75.4 percent.\12\ See
Figure 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Li, R., Pickrell, T.M. (2019, February). Occupant restraint
use in 2017: Results from the NOPUS controlled intersection study
(Report No. DOT HS 812 594). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. NOPUS is the only nationwide
probability-based observational survey of seat belt use in the
United States. The survey observes seat belt use as it actually
occurs at randomly-selected roadway sites, and involves a large
number of occupants (almost 64,000 in 2015). NOPUS observations are
made during daylight hours and are not necessarily representative of
high-risk driving times when belt use may be lower.
\12\ Li, R., Pickrell, T.M. (2019, February). Occupant restraint
use in 2017: Results from the NOPUS controlled intersection study
(Report No. DOT HS 812 594). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE19.004
NHTSA has, over time, used a variety of strategies to increase seat
belt use, including sponsoring national media campaigns, providing
assistance to states enacting seat belt use laws and high-visibility
enforcement campaigns, and facilitating or requiring vehicle-based
strategies. Some of these strategies are non-regulatory; some are
regulatory. NHTSA has implemented a variety of non-regulatory
approaches to increase seat belt use, such as the annual Click It or
Ticket mobilization, which includes a national advertising campaign
backed up by high-visibility local enforcement of state seat belt laws.
Some states with mandatory rear seat belt laws include rear-seat
specific messaging in their media campaigns.
One type of vehicle-based strategy is seat belt warning systems.
Seat belt warning systems encourage seat belt use by reminding
unbuckled occupants to fasten their belts and/or by informing the
driver that an occupant is unbelted, so that the driver can request the
unbelted occupant to fasten their seat belt.\13\ The warnings provided
by seat belt warning systems typically consist of visual and/or audible
signals. An optimized warning system balances effectiveness and
annoyance, so that the warning is noticeable enough that the occupants
will be motivated to fasten their belts, but not so intrusive that an
occupant will circumvent or disable it or the public will not accept
it.\14\ FMVSS No. 208 requires a seat belt warning system for the
driver's seat, but not other seating positions. Most currently-produced
vehicles also have a seat belt warning for the front outboard passenger
seat, although FMVSS No. 208 does not require this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Akamatsu, M., Hashimoto, H., and Shimaoka, S., ``Assessment
Method of Effectiveness of Passenger Seat Belt Reminder,'' SAE
Technical Paper 2012-01-0050, 2012, doi:10.4271/2012-01-0050.
\14\ See, e.g., Transportation Research Board Study, p. 25; DOT
2009 Belt Warning Study, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Buying a
Safer Car data, about 13 percent of model year (MY) 2019 vehicles sold
in the United States came equipped with a rear seat belt warning
system. Volvo, Toyota, Mazda, Ford and Jaguar Land Rover offer vehicles
for sale in the U.S. with rear seat belt warning systems. Volvo started
offering rear seat belt warnings in its vehicles in 2009 and currently
all its vehicle models are equipped with rear seat belt warnings. Mazda
and Ford introduced rear seat belt reminders in MY 2018 and 2019,
respectively. Mazda MY 2019 CX-9, CX-5, 3, and 6 vehicles are equipped
with rear seat belt reminder systems (SBRS), and Ford offers such
systems on the Ranger. GM also offered rear seat belt warning systems
as standard equipment in the United States (starting in MY 2010 for the
Cadillac SRX and MY 2011 for the Volt) and such systems were offered on
the Cadillac MY 2016 XTS and MY 2015 ELR, as well as the MY 2016 Chevy
SS. Jaguar Land Rover first introduced rear seat belt warning systems
in the MY 2010 Jaguar XJ, and since then has equipped four additional
vehicles models with such systems (Range Rover Evoque, Range Rover,
Range Rover Sport, and Discovery Sport). Toyota introduced rear seat
belt warning systems in several MY 2017 vehicles and increased the
number of equipped vehicles in MY 2018. All of these manufacturers'
rear seat belt warning systems use a display that is visible to the
driver and indicates which rear seat belts are in use, as well as
employing a change-of-status reminder that has visual and audible
components.
Euro NCAP introduced SBRS bonus points in 2002. The Euro NCAP
protocol for Safety Assist systems describes which features a seat belt
reminder must have to qualify for extra points.\15\ For rear seats, a
visual signal must start once the ignition switch is engaged. The
visual signal must be at least 60 seconds long. For systems without
occupant
[[Page 51080]]
detection, the visual signal must clearly indicate to the driver which
seat belts are in use and not in use. For systems with occupant
detection on all rear seating positions, the visual signal does not
need to indicate the number of seat belts in use or not in use, but the
signal must remain active if a seat belt remains unfastened on any of
the occupied seats in the rear. No visual signal is required if all the
rear occupants are belted. For systems with rear seat occupant
detection, a 30-second audible signal needs to activate before reaching
a vehicle speed of 25 km/h or before traveling 500 meters when any
occupied seat has an unbuckled belt. Except for change of status
events, the system may allow the driver to acknowledge the signal for
rear seats and switch it off.\16\ Furthermore, when any seat belt
experiences a change of status at vehicle speeds above 25 km/h, an
audiovisual signal is required; the requirements for this warning are
the same as for the seat belt reminder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ European New Car Assessment Programme Assessment Protocol--
Safety Assist, Version 8.0.2, November 2017.
\16\ For front seat belts, the assessment protocol requires both
a visual and an audible warning signal. The front occupant visual
signal must remain active until the seat belt is fastened. The
audible signal for the front occupants has two stages, an initial
and final audible signal, which have different onset criteria. The
initial audible signal must not exceed 30 seconds and the final
audible signal must be at least 90 seconds. To prevent unnecessary
signals, the system must also be capable of detecting whether the
front passenger seat is occupied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The European Union is set to adopt an updated version of Regulation
No. 16\17\ of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations
(UNECE) that will require seat belt reminder systems in all front and
rear seats on new cars beginning in September 2019.\18\ For the front
seats the seat belt reminder system is required to have a 2-level
approach. The first level warning consists of a visual warning that is
active for at least 30 seconds when any occupied front seat has an
unfastened seat belt. The second level warning is triggered by
threshold criteria based on distance traveled, speed, or duration of
travel, which are determined by the manufacturer. The second level
warning consists of a visual and audible signal activated for at least
30 seconds, not counting periods in which the warning may stop for up
to 3 seconds. A change in seat belt status in front and rear seats also
initiates the second level warning. For rear seats, only the first
level warning is required, which consists of a visual warning that must
be active for at least 60 seconds. The visual warning must indicate any
seating position in which the seat belt is unfastened, so as to allow
the driver to identify any unbelted occupants while facing forward in
the driver's seat. For vehicles that have information on the occupancy
status of the rear seats, the visual warning does not need to indicate
unfastened seat belts for unoccupied seating positions. Also, the first
level warning for rear seats can be dismissed by the driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ECE Regulation No. 16, Revision 9.
\18\ The regulation will be introduced in two phases: September
1, 2019 for new vehicle types, i.e., applied to all vehicle models
that get a new type approval and September 1, 2021 for all newly
produced and registered vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Regulatory and Legislative History
Current Driver's Seat Belt Warning Requirements
FMVSS No. 208 is intended to reduce the likelihood of occupant
deaths and the likelihood and severity of occupant injuries in crashes.
The standard took effect in 1968 and from its inception required seat
belts in passenger cars.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 32 FR 2408, 2415 (Feb. 3, 1967) (initial Federal motor
vehicle safety standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standard currently requires a seat belt warning for the
driver's seat belt on passenger cars; \20\ trucks and multipurpose
passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)) or less (except for some
compliance options which do not require the warning); \21\ and buses
with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less and an unloaded weight less
than or equal to 2,495 kg (5,500 lb).\22\ The regulations do not
require seat belt warnings for any seating position other than the
driver's seat.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ S4.1.5.1(a)(3); S7.3.
\21\ S4.2.6; S7.3.
\22\ S4.2.6 (with the exception of some options).
\23\ See, e.g., Interpretation Letter from NHTSA to R. Lucki
(July 24, 1985) (``Thus, the intent was to require a warning system
for only the driver's position.''), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/search.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers have two compliance options for the driver's
warning.\24\ The first option requires that if the key is in the ``on''
or ``start'' position and the seat belt is not in use, the vehicle must
provide a visual warning for at least 60 seconds, and an audible
warning that lasts 4 to 8 seconds. Under the second option, when the
key is turned to the ``on'' or ``start'' position, the vehicle must
provide a visual warning for 4 to 8 seconds (regardless of whether the
driver seat belt is fastened) and an audible warning lasting 4 to 8
seconds, if the driver seat belt is not in use. What is now the second
option (S7.3(a)(2)) became effective in 1974 and has remained unchanged
since then.\25\ What is now the first option (S7.3(a)(1)) was added to
S7.3 in 1991.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 49 CFR 571.208, S7.3.
\25\ See 39 FR 42692 (Dec. 4, 1974).
\26\ See 56 FR 3222 (Jan. 29, 1991). The warning requirements
for automatic belts in S4.5.3 mirror, with some differences, the
first compliance option. Automatic belts are rarely, if ever,
installed in current production vehicles, and NHTSA's regulations
limit the seating positions for which automatic belts may be used to
rear seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA Experience in the 1970s: Consumer Backlash Against Seat Belt
Interlock and Subsequent Statutory Limitation on Belt Warning
Requirements
Prior to 1974, NHTSA had promulgated a series of occupant
protection regulations that, at various times, specified as compliance
options various combinations of active and passive occupant crash
protection, seat belt interlocks, and seat belt warnings.\27\ A seat
belt warning was first required in 1971, when NHTSA sought to increase
seat belt use by adopting occupant protection compliance options that
included the use of a seat belt warning for the front outboard seating
positions.\28\ This seat belt warning option required audible and
visible warning signals that lasted for as long as the occupant was
unbelted, the ignition was ``on,'' and the transmission was in forward
or reverse. In 1972, NHTSA adopted occupant protection options for
passenger cars that included (for cars that did not provide automatic
protection) an interlock system that would prevent the engine from
starting if any of the front seat belts were not fastened.\29\ Contrary
to the agency's expectations, the initial vehicle introduction of these
systems in the early 1970s was not well-received by the public. In
particular, continuous buzzers and ignition interlocks annoyed many
consumers to the point of their disabling or circumventing the systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ ``Active protection'' refers to features, such as manual
seat belts, that require action by the occupant, while ``passive
protection,'' sometimes called ``automatic protection,'' refers to
safety features that do not require any action by the occupant other
than sitting in a designated seating position. Seat belt interlocks
prevent starting or operating a motor vehicle if an occupant is not
using a seat belt. For a fuller discussion of the history of the
active and passive protection requirements in FMVSS No. 208, see
Stephen R. Kratzke. Regulatory History of Automatic Crash Protection
in FMVSS 208. SAE Technical Paper 950865, International Congress and
Exposition, Society of Automotive Engineers, Detroit, Michigan, Feb.
27-March 2 (1995).
\28\ 36 FR 4600 (May 10, 1971).
\29\ 37 FR 3911 (Feb. 24, 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the strong negative consumer reaction, Congress
adopted a provision, as part of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety
Amendments of 1974, prohibiting the agency from prescribing a motor
vehicle safety
[[Page 51081]]
standard that required, or permitted as a compliance option, seat belt
interlocks or audible seat belt warnings lasting longer than eight
seconds.\30\ In response, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 208 in 1974 to
require that only the driver seating position be equipped with a seat
belt warning system providing a visual and audible warning, with the
audible warning not lasting longer than eight seconds.\31\ The limited
duration driver's seat belt warning requirement has remained in the
standard, with some changes, since 1974. NHTSA has not subsequently
amended FMVSS No. 208 to require seat belt warnings for any of the
passenger seating positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ These amendments were codified at 49 U.S.C. 30124. As
explained below, this provision was amended in 2012 by MAP-21.
\31\ 39 FR 42692 (Dec. 6, 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Regulatory History
In 2001, the House Committee on Appropriations directed NHTSA to
contract with the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National
Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the benefits and
acceptability of minimally intrusive vehicle technologies to increase
seat belt use.\32\ The Committee also requested that the study consider
potential legislative and regulatory actions to facilitate installation
of devices to encourage seat belt use. The TRB report (published in
2004) found that new seat belt use technologies could increase belt use
without being overly intrusive.\33\ It recommended that rear seat belt
warning systems be developed and that NHTSA undertake a broad, multi-
year program of research on the effectiveness and acceptability of
different seat belt warning systems to establish a basis for future
regulation. It also recommended that Congress amend the Safety Act to
eliminate the 8-second limit on the length of the audible warning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ House Report 107-108, June 22, 2001.
\33\ Transportation Research Board Study, p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2002 and 2003, NHTSA sent letters to several vehicle
manufacturers encouraging them to enhance seat belt warning systems
beyond the FMVSS No. 208 minimum requirements.\34\ (An ``enhanced''
warning system is one with visual and/or audible warning signals that
exceed the maximum durations specified in S7.3, and/or that applies to
seating positions other than the driver's seat). The agency also
determined that the Safety Act did not prohibit manufacturers from
implementing enhanced warning systems as long as the manufacturer
provided some means of differentiating the voluntarily-provided signal
from the required signal (for example, by a clearly distinguished lapse
in time between the two signals).\35\ Many vehicle manufacturers
subsequently implemented enhanced seat belt warnings for the driver and
front outboard passenger seating positions. Based on information
submitted to the agency in connection with the agency's NCAP for MY
2018, 99.9 percent of participating vehicle models offered for sale in
the U.S. had an enhanced warning (audio and/or visual) for the driver,
right front passenger, or both, with a duration exceeding the FMVSS No.
208 requirement.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13226.
\35\ See Docket Nos. NHTSA-2001-9899, NHTSA-2002-13379, NHTSA-
2003-14742, NHTSA-2003-15006, and NHTSA-2003-15156.
\36\ IIHS reported that enhanced SBRSs are standard equipment
for the driver and front passenger in 90 and 78 percent,
respectively, of the 2013 vehicle models. This is based on the data
maintained in their Highway Loss Data Institute, Vehicle Information
Database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, Congress passed legislation--the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) \37\--that required NHTSA to evaluate the effectiveness
and acceptability of several different types of enhanced seat belt
warnings offered by a number of manufacturers. In response, the agency
conducted a multi-phase research study (described below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Public Law 109-59, 10306 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 21, 2007, Public Citizen and Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety (petitioners) petitioned NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 208 to
require a seat belt warning system for rear seats on passenger cars and
MPVs with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.\38\ The petitioners
noted that primary enforcement laws typically do not cover rear seat
occupants and asserted that studies have proven that warnings for rear
seat belts significantly increase rear passenger seat belt use. The
petitioners further asserted that rear seat belt warnings are
technologically feasible and would be less costly if they were required
in all vehicles. The petitioners provided a range of estimates for how
much a rear seat belt warning system could increase rear belt use.
Petitioners asserted that rear seat belt warnings would save hundreds
of lives each year and that a large percentage of the lives saved would
be children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0061-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 29, 2010, the agency published a Request for Comments (RFC)
on the petition.\39\ The RFC discussed the agency's research and
findings regarding requiring rear seat belt warnings and solicited
comments. The agency received 26 comments. Five commenters opposed
requiring rear seat belt warnings: Ford Motor Company, General Motors,
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers (now known as the Association of
Global Automakers), and a commenter from the general public. Among
those that supported requiring rear seat belt warnings were IEE S.A.,
Consumers Union, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the Automotive
Occupant Restraint Council (now known as the Automotive Safety
Council), and the American Academy of Pediatrics. NHTSA has granted the
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 75 FR 37343 (June 29, 2010) (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0061).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2012, Congress passed MAP-21.\40\ MAP-21 contains two provisions
regarding seat belt warning systems. First, it repeals the statutory
provision that prohibited NHTSA from requiring or specifying as a
compliance option an audible seat belt warning lasting longer than 8
seconds.\41\ Second, it requires the Secretary to initiate a rulemaking
proceeding to amend FMVSS No. 208 to provide a safety belt use warning
system for designated seating positions in the rear seat.\42\ It
directs the Secretary to either issue a final rule, or, if the
Secretary determines that such an amendment does not meet the
requirements and considerations of 49 U.S.C. 30111,\43\ to submit a
report to Congress describing the reasons for not prescribing such a
standard. In accordance with MAP-21, in early 2013 NHTSA initiated a
rulemaking proceeding when it submitted for public comment a proposal
to undertake a study regarding the effectiveness of existing rear seat
belt warning systems.\44\ (The results of this study, which involved a
consumer phone survey and was completed in 2015, are discussed later in
this document.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21),
Public Law 112-141 (2012).
\41\ Id. at Sec. 31202(a)(2) (repealing portion of 49 U.S.C.
30124).
\42\ Id. at Sec. 31503.
\43\ Section 30111 requires that a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
meet the need for safety, be stated in objective terms, and be
practicable, among other requirements. See infra, Part V.
\44\ 78 FR 5865 (Jan. 28, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. NHTSA Research on Effectiveness and Acceptance of Seat Belt
Warnings
In light of the Congressional directives concerning seat belt
warnings, NHTSA has taken a variety of actions to research the
effectiveness and acceptance of seat belt warnings.
In 2002, the agency chartered an integrated project team to
recomm8end
[[Page 51082]]
strategies for increasing seat belt use.\45\ The team's report, issued
in 2003, observed that ``[d]espite the significant increases over the
past twenty years, safety belt use in the United States falls short of
that in some industrialized nations.'' \46\ The report also noted that
there are a ``wide range of initiatives . . . that have the potential
to raise and/or sustain safety belt use rates.'' The report went on to
identify several such initiatives, which it classified as either
behavioral or vehicle-based. The behavioral strategies were upgrading
existing state seat belt laws; high-visibility enforcement campaigns; a
national communications plan; employer policies and regulation; and
insurance industry collaboration. The vehicle-based strategies included
encouraging vehicle manufacturers to voluntarily install enhanced seat
belt warning systems; providing consumer information on vehicles
equipped with enhanced warning systems as part of NCAP; and continued
monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness and acceptability of
enhanced seat belt warnings through research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See 68 FR 46262 (Aug. 5, 2003).
\46\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. July 2003. Initiatives to Address Safety Belt
Use, available at www.regulations.gov (docket NHTSA-2003-14621).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the 2005 SAFETEA-LU mandate, NHTSA undertook a
multi-phase research study of seat belt warnings. NHTSA published
several reports. Three are particularly relevant to today's ANPRM. The
first is a large-sample national observational study on the
effectiveness of front seat belt warnings.\47\ The study covered
several states in different parts of the country. The vehicles in the
study sample had a wide variety of seat belt warning systems. These
included warning systems that had only the minimum features required by
FMVSS No. 208, as well as twenty different enhanced warning systems.
Because of the detail of the data gathered (e.g., occupant demographic
and vehicle-specific information), the analysis was able to control for
confounding factors. The second study used an experimental or focus-
group-based approach to study consumer acceptance as well as
effectiveness.\48\ The third report summarized and extended the
analyses from the previous two reports.\49\ This series of research
studies showed, among other things, that the presence of an enhanced
front seat belt reminder system increased front outboard passenger seat
belt use by about 3 to 4 percentage points more than in vehicles with
only a driver seat belt warning system meeting the minimum requirements
in S7.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Mark Freedman et al. The Effectiveness of Enhanced Seat
Belt Reminder Systems Draft Report: Observational Field Data
Collection Methodology and Findings. 2007. DOT HS-810-844.
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
\48\ N. Lerner et al. 2007. Acceptability and Potential
Effectiveness of Enhanced Seat Belt Reminder System Features. DOT HS
810 848. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration [hereinafter DOT 2007 Acceptability Study].
\49\ DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA continued and expanded on this work several years later. In
2015 the agency completed an additional report on the effectiveness and
consumer acceptance of rear seat belt warnings, based on a consumer
survey.\50\ This study utilized a telephone survey of the drivers of
vehicles with and without rear seat belt warning systems. The study
found that overall, drivers of vehicles with a rear seat belt warning
system were satisfied with the system and noticed an increase in rear
seat belt use. For example, among drivers of vehicles with a rear seat
belt warning, approximately 80 percent were satisfied with the system
and 65 percent reported that the rear seat belt warning made it easier
to encourage rear seat passengers to buckle up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Paul Schroeder & Melanie Wilbur. 2015. Survey of Principal
Drivers of Vehicles with a Rear Seat Belt Reminder System.
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[Found in the docket for this ANPRM.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of NHTSA's research are discussed in more detail in
Section VI.A and VI.C-D. The relevant research reports have also been
placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
V. NHTSA's Statutory Authority
Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101
et seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for
prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet
the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective
terms.\51\ ``Motor vehicle safety'' is defined in the Motor Vehicle
Safety Act as ``the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk
of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or
performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death
or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor
vehicle.'' \52\ ``Motor vehicle safety standard'' means a minimum
performance standard for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.\53\
When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider all
relevant, available motor vehicle safety information.\54\ The Secretary
must also consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable,
practicable, and appropriate for the types of motor vehicles or motor
vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed and the extent to which
the standard will further the statutory purpose of reducing traffic
accidents and associated deaths.\55\ The responsibility for
promulgation of Federal motor vehicle safety standards is delegated to
NHTSA.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\52\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).
\53\ 30102(a)(9).
\54\ 30111(b)(1).
\55\ 30111(b)(3)-(4).
\56\ See 49 CFR part 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAP-21 requires the Secretary to initiate a rulemaking proceeding
to amend FMVSS No. 208 to provide a safety belt use warning system for
designated seating positions in the rear seat.\57\ It directs the
Secretary to either issue a final rule, or, if the Secretary determines
that such an amendment does not meet the requirements and
considerations of 49 U.S.C. 30111, to submit a report to Congress
describing the reasons for not prescribing such a standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21),
Public Law 112-141, 31503 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Issues on Which NHTSA Seeks Information From the Public
As it continues with the proceeding required to be initiated by
MAP-21, NHTSA seeks comment on a variety of issues related to amending
FMVSS No. 208 to require a rear seat belt warning system. These
include: The types of seat belt warning system requirements the agency
should propose; the effectiveness of such systems at increasing rear
seat belt use; the degree to which consumers would accept such systems;
the associated benefits and costs; and the vehicles to which any
proposed requirements should apply.
A. Potential Specifications for a Required Rear Belt Warning System
NHTSA is considering proposing any of a variety of minimum
requirements for a rear seat belt warning system. There are a variety
of aspects of the possible proposed requirements that we seek comment
on. NHTSA especially seeks any data related to these issues.
1. Should the warning be visual-only, audible-only, or audio-
visual? If NHTSA were to propose requirements for a warning that is
similar to existing seat belt warnings, should the warning be visual-
only (e.g., a telltale displaying text or icons), audio-only, or audio-
[[Page 51083]]
visual? (Below we also seek comment on alternative non-traditional
approaches.) FMVSS No. 208 requires the driver's seat belt warning to
be audio-visual. Seat belt warnings for front outboard passenger seats
(which are not required by FMVSS No. 208) currently on the market are
also typically audio-visual. NHTSA's research suggests that audible
warnings in conjunction with visual warnings are generally more
effective than text or icons alone, but are also more intrusive.\58\
However, research has not yet firmly established which system
characteristics are optimal.\59\ Neither Euro NCAP or the ECE
regulation require an audible warning for rear seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, supra, p. 39 (drivers); p. 45
(passengers).
\59\ DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[rtarr8] Below we ask specific questions about potential
specifications for visual and audible warnings, and, more generally,
which of these NHTSA should propose for the rear seat belt warning
system minimum requirements. Should whether the warning is visual or
audible depend on when the warning is given and what it is for (e.g., a
visual warning at the beginning of the trip and an audible warning
during the trip if a buckled belt becomes unfastened)? Should it also
depend on the recipient of the warning (for example, driver versus rear
passenger)?
NHTSA also seeks comment on whether an audible warning alone,
without a visual warning, would be an effective way to alert the driver
to the status of the rear seat belts and increase rear seat belt use.
For example, would an audible notification (e.g., a chime) indicating
that a rear-seat occupant had buckled the belt effectively inform the
driver (or facilitate the driver in determining) whether there were any
unbuckled rear-seat occupants? We also seek comment on the costs and
benefits of different types of warnings.
2. Triggering conditions. Since seat belt warning systems are
generally initiated at the beginning of a trip (i.e., when the ignition
switch is moved to the ``on'' or ``start'' position) so as to assure
that occupants are safely restrained prior to any potential vehicle
crash, this is perhaps the most intuitive approach for rear seat belt
warnings as well. However, might it be preferable to delay the warning
to a time when the warning could be given greater attention and,
perhaps, the driver (or other occupant) is less distracted? Would
delaying the warning until the vehicle is placed in gear make it more
likely that the occupants fasten their belts before the vehicle is in
motion? Are there other triggering conditions for the start of a trip
NHTSA should consider, and what would be the justification for choosing
them? Would the triggering condition necessitate occupant detection?
Should the warning be required/allowed/disallowed if the/a belt is
buckled?
In addition to a warning at the beginning of a trip, should there
be a warning if a seat belt becomes unbuckled in the course of a trip
(a change-of-status warning)? Such a warning may reduce the risk of
injury to children by alerting the driver that a child has unbuckled
his or her seat belt, providing the driver an opportunity to direct the
child to re-buckle the belt. The signal may also potentially prevent
children from unbuckling their seat belts. The agency's 2015 Survey of
Principal Drivers of Vehicles with a Rear Seat Belt Reminder System
found that a change of status warning is effective in getting
passengers to refasten their seat belt.\60\ Volvo and Jaguar Land Rover
vehicles sold in the United States and equipped with rear seat belt
warnings provide a change-of-status warning. In addition, a change-of-
status warning is required by the new ECE regulation No. 16 and is also
required to obtain bonus points for a seat belt reminder system by Euro
NCAP.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Paul Schroeder & Melanie Wilbur. 2015. Survey of Principal
Drivers of Vehicles with a Rear Seat Belt Reminder System.
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
[Found in the docket for this ANPRM.]
\61\ ECE Regulation No. 16, Revision 9 Sec. 8.4.3.3 and
8.4.4.5; European New Car Assessment Programme Assessment Protocol--
Safety Assist, Sec. 3.1.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If NHTSA should propose a change-of-status warning, what should the
triggering condition(s) be? Should it be linked to the vehicle's speed
and/or transmission position (e.g., forward or reverse, or other
criteria), and if so, what should the criteria be, and why? Similarly,
should there be criteria for the duration of the warning? In order to
earn bonus points, Euro NCAP requires the system to activate the change
of status warning immediately at vehicle speeds over 25 km/h. If the
change of status occurs below 25 km/h and no doors are opened, the
signal may be delayed until the vehicle has been in motion for 500
meters.\62\ The ECE regulation uses similar thresholds, but lets the
manufacturer choose either a speed, distance traveled, or a duration
threshold.\63\ Are there situations when the warning at a low speed
would result in an unnecessary or unwanted warning, and how frequently
would such situations occur?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ European New Car Assessment Programme Assessment Protocol--
Safety Assist, Sec. 3.3.2.
\63\ ECE Regulation No. 16, Revision 9 Sec. 8.4.2.4.1.1. to
8.4.2.4.1.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Alternative warning systems. NHTSA also seeks comment on whether
it should require or specify as a compliance option a rear seat belt
warning that differs from the type of audio-visual warning that is
currently required for the driver's seat belt. Alternatives to a visual
warning (telltale) on vehicle start-up could include an audible signal,
either electronic or mechanical, or a haptic warning (e.g., steering
wheel or seat vibration). Similarly, an audible or visual warning of a
change in the status of rear seat belts could be either electronic or
mechanical and could include a haptic signal. For example, to what
extent does the sound of the latch plate clicking into the buckle when
a belt is fastened currently serve as an indication of seat belt use?
Would that sound, perhaps augmented, serve as an effective notice to
the driver that a rear-seat occupant had buckled the belt, or the lack
of such sound indicate that a rear-seat occupant had not buckled the
belt? To facilitate an effective warning that advances safety and is
appropriate for diverse vehicle types and uses, NHTSA seeks comment on
alternative cost-effective solutions that would alert the driver when a
rear seat passenger buckles and/or unbuckles. For any alternative
warning systems/signals that are identified, NHTSA seeks information on
the issues we identify below. For example, how would such an alert
function if there were multiple rear-seat occupants? Would the warning
be distinguishable from other alerts that are provided to the driver?
How would the costs and benefits of such a warning compare to more
traditional types of warnings?
4. Occupant detection technology. NHTSA also seeks comment on
warning systems that utilize occupant detection.
Rear seat warning systems that employ occupant detection have
potential advantages over systems that do not utilize it. With occupant
detection, a warning system can provide more informative warnings. The
system can determine whether any seats are occupied by an unbelted
occupant, as opposed to simply notifying the driver which or how many
belts, if any, are fastened. Such systems are also better able to
appropriately target audible warnings or longer-duration visual
warnings (enhanced warnings). Having an audible or longer-duration
visual warning activate for an unoccupied seat (such as might be the
case if the system did not have occupant detection) could be a nuisance
for the driver and might either desensitize the occupants to the
[[Page 51084]]
warning signal, or lead them to circumvent or defeat the system.
However, occupant detection for the rear seats may present both
technical and cost challenges.\64\ Rear seats are used in ways that
complicate occupant detection. Rear seats may frequently be used to
transport cargo such as groceries, pets, and other heavy objects, which
could be mistaken for an occupant. Rear seats are frequently used for
child restraint systems attached by a child restraint anchorage system,
or LATCH.\65\ An occupant detection system in the rear seat may have
difficulty detecting a child restraint system. In addition, rear seats
may be less well-defined than most front seats, which could make it
more challenging for a sensor to define seat occupancy accurately. For
example, it may be technically challenging for an occupant detection
system to recognize a large occupant spanning multiple seating
positions as a single occupant rather than two occupants. These
challenges may be greater or lesser depending on the rear seat
configuration of the vehicle. A seat belt warning system utilizing
occupant detection technology could provide false reminders if the
occupant detection were inaccurate. A problem with false reminders is
that they can lead occupants to disregard or attempt to circumvent the
system, defeating the purpose of such systems. Occupant detection is
also likely to add cost to a rear sear warning system. Euro NCAP does
not specify that occupant detection for rear seats is needed in order
to obtain bonus points.\66\ The ECE regulations do not require occupant
detection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ In the U.S., occupant detection is widely used in existing
vehicles in the front outboard designated seating positions, either
as part of an advanced air bag system, or as part of a voluntary
seat belt warning system. Occupant detection is utilized by the
advanced air bags to properly classify the occupant in the seat
(e.g., child, adult, small-statured adult) so that the advanced
frontal air bag systems can determine if and with what level of
power the front air bag will inflate. We believe that occupant
detection is voluntarily used in the front passenger seat to avoid
having an audible warning activate for an unoccupied seat. Occupant
detection systems are practical for the front outboard passenger
seating position, as that passenger seat is not typically subject to
as many of the potential complications to occupant detection posed
by rear seats (such as large occupants spanning multiple seating
positions).
\65\ Many in the child passenger safety community refer to the
child restraint anchorage system as the ``LATCH'' system, an
abbreviation of the phrase ``Lower Anchors and Tethers for
Children.'' The term was developed by a group of manufacturers and
retailers for use in educating consumers on the availability and use
of the anchorage system and for marketing purposes.
\66\ European New Car Assessment Programme Assessment Protocol--
Safety Assist, Sec. 3.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek comment on whether NHTSA should propose warning system
requirements that would necessitate occupant detection for the rear
seats, and the technical and cost feasibility of doing so.
NHTSA also seeks comment on proposing multiple compliance options
for the warning system requirements. Should all the compliance options
require occupant detection, or should there be some compliance options
that do not require occupant detection? To what extent should we expect
increased effectiveness and benefits for a system utilizing occupant
detection compared to a system without such technology? What would be
the increased cost associated with such a system (on a per seat and per
vehicle basis), and how would it compare to the increased benefits (if
any)?
5. Enhanced warning systems. Enhanced warning systems utilize
warnings that are relatively longer-lasting or have an audible
component beyond the minimum FMVSS No. 208 requirements for the
driver's seat warning. Research by NHTSA and others suggests that
audible warnings in conjunction with visible warnings are potentially
more effective than visible warnings alone.\67\ As noted above, an
enhanced warning that activates for an unoccupied seat could be a
nuisance that either desensitizes the occupants to the warning signal
or leads them to circumvent or defeat the warning. Enhanced warnings
therefore generally need to work in conjunction with an occupant
detection system, and even this might not completely eliminate the
possibilities of false warnings (for example, if a rear seat is
occupied by a pet or groceries).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See, e.g., DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, supra, pp. 54, 57.
See also Paul Schroeder & Melanie Wilbur. 2015. Survey of Principal
Drivers of Vehicles with a Rear Seat Belt Reminder System.
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, p.
66; and IIHS Status Report Vol. 54, No. 3, April 25, 2019, p. 5.
[Found in the docket for this ANPRM.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to this, while enhanced warnings are potentially more
effective due to their persistence and annoyance,\68\ they also present
potential consumer acceptance challenges for the same reasons.
Considering the history in this area as described above, the agency is
particularly concerned with striking the right balance. NHTSA's
research suggests that there is an inherent trade-off between
effectiveness and acceptability.\69\ The agency's research has noted
that no clear consensus exists about which warning system features are
most acceptable,\70\ and that the data regarding acceptance so far are
``limited, subjective, and anecdotal.'' \71\ It has also been pointed
out that the research on seat belt use and acceptability among drivers
may not be representative of situations where multiple passengers are
present and that further evaluation is warranted on the annoyance and
acceptance of seat belt warnings.\72\ Euro NCAP specifies that, if
there is no occupant detection, only a 60 second visual signal is
needed for the rear warning in order to earn bonus points, and the new
ECE regulation also only requires a 60 second visual signal for the
rear warning.\73\ We seek comment on whether the rear warning system
should be required to include audible or visual warning features
exceeding those currently required for the driver's seat belt warning
(including the costs and benefits) and if so, what those features
should be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See, e.g., DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, supra, p. 54.
\69\ See id. p. 60.
\70\ DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, supra, p. 8; Schroeder &
Wilbur, supra, p. 33.
\71\ DOT 2007 Acceptability Study, supra, p. 41.
\72\ DOT 2007 Acceptability Study, supra, pp. 41-42.
\73\ ECE Regulation No. 16, Revision 9 Sec. 8.4.2.3.1; European
New Car Assessment Programme Assessment Protocol--Safety Assist,
Sec. 3.3.1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Belt use criteria. The current driver's belt warning
requirements specify that a belt is ``not in use'' when, at the option
of the manufacturer, either the seat belt latch mechanism is not
fastened or the belt is not extended at least 10.16 centimeters (cm) (4
inches (in)) from its stowed position.\74\ Should NHTSA retain these
criteria to determine if a rear seated occupant is belted, and if not,
what should the criteria be, and why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ S7.3(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Seat occupancy criteria. If NHTSA were to propose system
requirements for occupant detection (either mandatory or as a
compliance option), seat occupancy criteria might be necessary to
objectively specify when a seat is occupied for the purposes of NHTSA's
compliance testing. Because the existing seat belt warning requirements
in S7.3 apply only to the driver seat, they do not contemplate an
occupant detection system (because, traditionally, driver seat
occupancy could be assumed).
Accordingly, NHTSA might need to propose seat occupancy criteria.
If so, what should the criteria be? First, what type of occupants
should the criteria be based on; e.g., should they be based on a mid-
size male, small-size female, or a child? Should the system be required
to register small children that would presumably be placed in a child
restraint system? Should the criteria
[[Page 51085]]
take into account the presence of child restraint systems?
Next, for the type(s) of occupants upon which the criteria are
based, what should the criteria be? Should NHTSA consider the same seat
occupancy criteria specified in FMVSS No. 208 for compliance testing of
low-risk deployment and suppression air bag systems? To test whether an
air bag system either suppresses or properly deploys the front outboard
passenger air bag in the presence of a child or small-stature
individual, NHTSA tests the air bag system with a variety of different
dummies. For example, for the static suppression and low-risk
deployment compliance options, FMVSS No. 208 specifies multiple
performance tests using 1-, 3-, and 6-year-old Anthropomorphic Test
Devices (test dummies) both in and out of a Child Restraint System
(CRS). In addition, in order to ensure that the suppression feature
does not inappropriately suppress the air bag for small-statured
adults, FMVSS No. 208 requires the air bag system to be active during
several static tests using a 5th percentile adult female dummy in the
right front passenger seat.
In order to perform compliance testing on a rear seat belt warning
system that uses occupant detection, should NHTSA use one or more of
these dummies, or specify occupancy conditions based on one of these
dummies? For example, NHTSA could specify use of the 6-year-old test
dummy. Alternatively (or in addition), NHTSA could specify that a rear
seat would be considered ``occupied'' when an occupant who weighs at
least 21 kg (46.5 lb), and is at least 114 cm (45 in) tall is seated
there. These measurements come from FMVSS No. 208, S29.1(e), and
correspond to the height and weight requirements for a child who is
used as an alternative for the 6-year-old child test dummy for
compliance testing of advanced air bag systems utilizing static
suppression. Is this an appropriate threshold? NHTSA also seeks comment
on the potential for false warnings, and how this might be addressed.
8. Making the system resistant to intentional and inadvertent
defeat. As part of the agency's seat belt interlock research program,
we recently performed research on the development of a seat belt misuse
detection system,\75\ so we are aware there are a number of ways in
which a rear seat belt warning system might be intentionally defeated,
as well as potential countermeasures. For example, a warning system
could be defeated if:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Mazzae, E.N., Baldwin, G.H.S., & Andrella, A.T. (2018,
October). Performance assessment of prototype seat belt misuse
detection system (Report No. DOT HS 812 593). Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The belt was buckled before the occupant sat in the seat.
This could be addressed by requiring a sequential logic system. A
sequential logic system would require that the belt be buckled after
the seat has been occupied in order for the system to recognize the
seat belt as being buckled;
An occupant buckles the seat belt behind themselves. This
could be addressed by utilizing seat belt buckle and spool-out sensors
and deactivating the warning only if the webbing were spooled out more
than a predetermined length. However, even these sensors could be
defeated by pulling out additional webbing and clipping it off to
prevent retraction; or
The seat belt and/or occupant detection sensors utilized
by the rear warning system in vehicles with removable rear seats are
intentionally disconnected.
There are also scenarios involving inadvertent circumvention that
could impact the effectiveness and accuracy of a rear belt warning
system. One scenario is when the driver uses a remote engine starter so
that the initial warning activates before the driver (and perhaps the
rear seat occupants) are in the vehicle. This might be addressed by
programming the system to require input from door or occupant sensors
to verify that the driver is in the vehicle. There are, of course, a
variety of other ways the warning system might be intentionally or
inadvertently circumvented.
We seek comment on whether NHTSA should propose requirements to
address circumvention. We also seek comment on whether we should
propose requiring a single-trip manual deactivation of the seat belt
warning system once the minimal signal performance requirements are
met, which might diminish the likelihood of circumvention.\76\ The ECE
regulations allow the rear seat belt warning system to incorporate a
short-term and/or a long-term deactivation feature for the audible
change-of-status warning.\77\ Under these regulations, a short-term
deactivation may only be effectuated by specific controls that are not
integrated in the safety-belt buckle and only when the vehicle is
stationary.\78\ When the ignition or master control switch is
deactivated for more than 30 minutes and activated again, a short-term
deactivated safety-belt reminder must reactivate. A long-term
deactivation may only be effectuated by a sequence of operations that
are detailed only in the manufacturer's technical manual or which
require tools that are not provided with the vehicle.\79\ To what
extent would a deactivation feature reduce the effectiveness of the
warning? Would a deactivation feature only be needed for systems with a
persistent audible warning?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ A single-trip manual activation refers to a feature that
allows the driver to acknowledge a visual or audio signal--e.g.,
with a press of a button--and not continue seeing or hearing it.
\77\ Sec. 8.4.5.
\78\ Sec. 8.4.5.1.
\79\ Sec. 8.4.5.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Electrical Connection Requirements. A rear seat belt warning
system might require an electrical connection between the seat and the
vehicle to relay the information gathered by a buckle or webbing spool-
out sensor to the rest of the warning system. A rear-belt warning
system may therefore present potential wiring complexities,
particularly in vehicles with removable, folding, rotating, or stowable
seats. These types of seats might present an issue for a rear seat belt
warning system because the electrical connection might not be
reestablished for these seats when the seat is reinstalled. There could
be instances for manual connection seats where the driver either
forgets to make the connection or makes an improper connection. Even
for seats where the connections are automatically established when the
seat is reinstalled, the automatic connectors might malfunction and a
proper connection may not be made. If the electrical connection is not
reestablished, the warning system could malfunction or provide
inaccurate information. This issue might predominantly affect minivans,
which make up a small percentage of the fleet. Removable seats are
mainly found in the second row of minivans. Foldable, rotating or
otherwise stowable seats (e.g., Stow-n-Go, Flip and Fold) are prominent
in the third row of minivans or large sport utility vehicles. Foldable
or stowable seats in the second row are not as prominent in minivans.
A variety of potential system requirements could be proposed to
address this potential issue. The warning system in such vehicles might
be required to automatically connect the electrical connections when
the seat is put in place or, if a manual electrical connection is
required, the connectors might be required to be readily accessible.
The system could also provide a warning signal to inform the driver if
a proper electrical connection has not been made with respect to an
easily removable seat. Euro NCAP and
[[Page 51086]]
the revised ECE regulations do not have such specifications. The ECE
regulations provide that the rear seat belt warning requirements will
not apply to removable rear seats or to seats in a row in which there
is a suspension seat until September 2022.
NHTSA seeks comment on this issue, particularly on whether such
electrical connection requirements should be proposed, and if so what
they should be, and what types of seats they should be required for.
Are there new and innovative wireless technologies that could reduce or
eliminate wiring complexities, such as those used in tire pressure
monitoring systems? The agency also seeks comment on the safety need
for such warnings and the costs and feasibility of addressing these
issues.
10. Owner's manual/label requirements. We also seek comment on
whether NHTSA should propose that information be provided in the
vehicle owner's manual that accurately describes the warning system's
features, including the location and format of the visual warnings, in
an easily understandable format. Information of this sort is already
required by FMVSS No. 208 for the driver's seat belt warning. Owner's
manual readership may be relatively low,\80\ so we also seek comment on
whether we should require that this information be displayed in the
vehicle instead of (or in addition to) the owner's manual. Should
information about the reconnection of electrical components for any
removable/stowable seats be placed in close proximity to the seat's
electrical connection?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ The National Child Restraint Use Special Study found that
only 13 percent of drivers reported reading the vehicle owner's
manual. Nathan K. Greenwell. 2015. DOT HS 812 142. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Interaction with other vehicle warnings. NHTSA also seeks
comment on whether a rear seat belt warning could conflict with other
in-vehicle warnings. We seek comment on how NHTSA might specify warning
requirements so that any such conflicts are avoided or minimized, and,
if a conflict cannot be avoided, which warning, if any, should take
precedence.
12. Harmonization with regulatory requirements or new car
assessment programs in other markets. NHTSA also seeks comment on
whether and to what extent any proposed requirements might (or should)
be based upon or differ from other regulatory requirements (such as ECE
requirements) or consumer information programs (such as Euro NCAP).
With respect to potential requirements for a visual rear seat belt
warning, NHTSA seeks comment on the following:
13. Visual warning location. Who should the signal warn--the
driver, the rear passenger(s), or both? A seat belt warning can
function either by alerting the driver that a rear seat belt is
unbuckled, leaving it to the driver to request the rear passenger to
buckle up; it can warn the rear passenger(s) directly that their belt
is unbuckled; or it can warn both the driver and rear passenger(s).
Some research may suggest that having the warning visible to the
unbelted occupant may increase effectiveness.\81\ The new ECE
regulation simply requires that the visual warning be visible to the
driver when they are facing forward.\82\ NHTSA seeks comment on whether
the warning should be visible to the driver, the rear passenger(s), or
both. To what extent would requiring a warning be visible to rear
passengers increase cost and complexity, and would this be justified?
Where should the visual warning be located, especially with respect to
the rear passenger, if such a telltale were appropriate? To what extent
would or should such requirements constrain manufacturers' design
choices, and how could such constraints be minimized?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ DOT 2007 Acceptability Study, supra, pp. 67-68.
\82\ ECE Regulation No. 16, Revision 9 Sec. 8.4.4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. What type of information should the warning convey?
Particularly with respect to a visual warning for the driver, what type
of information should a visual warning convey? For example, the system
could indicate how many or which rear seat belts are in use (a
``positive-only'' system); how many or which rear seat belts are not in
use (a ``negative-only'' system); or how many or which rear seat belts
are in use and how many or which rear seat belts are not in use (a
``full-status'' system).
Each of these systems could have strengths and limitations. A
positive-only system would be the least technically complex of the
three. Since it would only need to detect whether a seat belt is in
use, it would require seat belt latch or webbing spool-out sensors
(assuming no defeat sensing was required). With a positive-only system,
the driver would need to determine how many rear seat occupants there
are and then determine if that number equals the number of seat belts
that are reported by the warning system as buckled. This compliance
option would not necessitate occupant detection.
Negative-only and full-status systems would provide more direct
information to the driver, but might be more technically complex. These
systems might be more effective than a positive-only system because
they would directly inform the driver whether any rear seat occupants
were unbuckled, without the driver having to compare the number or
location of occupants and fastened belts. In addition, as discussed
above, warning systems equipped with occupant detection are more
amenable to audible warnings and enhanced warning features. However,
such systems might require occupant detection sensors in order to
minimize or eliminate false warnings. (Because the negative-only and
full-status systems would indicate the presence of an unbuckled belt,
they would probably want to avoid giving this warning unless the seat
were occupied; if not, such ``false positives'' could lead the driver
the disregard the warning or circumvent the system.)
NHTSA seeks comment on the relative merits of such systems. Should
NHTSA propose one or more of these systems as requirements or
compliance options? How much more effective would the more informative
negative-only and full-status systems be? How much more complex or
expensive would they be? Would occupant detection be necessary for
these systems? NHTSA also seeks comment on whether there are
alternative warning systems that would convey alternative or additional
information to the driver (or rear passengers). For example, would a
less sophisticated warning, such as a specialized system of mirrors, be
sufficient to inform the driver about the status of the rear seat
belts?
15. Telltale Characteristics. If a visual warning system including
a telltale were to be required, should NHTSA propose requirements for
telltale characteristics, and if so, what should they be? Should the
warning be standardized, and would this increase the likelihood that
consumers would notice, recognize, and respond to the warnings? For
example, should NTHSA propose requirements for the color of the
telltale, required text, pictorial vs. alphanumeric, or whether it
flashes?
16. Minimum duration. What should the minimum duration of a visual
warning be? The current driver's seat belt visual warning is required
to last at least 60 seconds under the second compliance option. What
minimum length of time would be sufficient to capture the driver's (or
passenger's) attention for the rear seat belt warning, without becoming
a distraction or nuisance for the driver (or passenger)? NHTSA's
research (for front seat belt
[[Page 51087]]
warnings) suggests that longer-duration warnings are more effective,
but also more annoying.\83\ Euro NCAP specifies at least a 90 second
visual signal for the front seats and only a 60 second visual signal
for the rear seats in order to earn bonus points. The new ECE
regulation specifies a first level 30 second visual warning and second
level 30 second audiovisual warning for the front seats and a 60 second
visual signal for the rear seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, supra, p. 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to audible warnings, we seek comment on the following:
17. Minimum duration. If an audible warning requirement were
adopted for the change-of-status warning, what should the minimum
duration of an audible warning be? Because MAP-21 removed the 8-second
limitation, NHTSA may require longer-lasting audible warnings. NHTSA
is, however, cognizant of the fact that longer warnings lead to
annoyance. What duration would appropriately balance effectiveness and
annoyance? Euro NCAP specifies that a change-of-status audible warning
must be 30 seconds long in order to receive bonus points.\84\ The new
ECE regulation also specifies that a change-of-status audible warning
component be 30 seconds long.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ European New Car Assessment Programme Assessment Protocol--
Safety Assist, Sec. 3.3.2.
\85\ ECE Regulation No. 16, Revision 9 Sec. 8.4.2.4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Other audible signal characteristics. If it mandates an audible
warning, should NHTSA specify any additional audible warning
characteristics (for example, a minimum/maximum sound level)?
B. Applicability
19. NHTSA seeks comment on the vehicles to which any proposed rear
seat belt warning requirements should apply. We also seek comment on
whether any vehicles within the broad applicability criteria should be
exempt. Rear seat belts are generally required except in certain buses
(such as school buses) between 10,000 lb and 26,000 lb, and for school,
perimeter, and transit buses over 26,000 lb. (Other exceptions also
apply.) We especially seek comment on whether a rear seat belt warning
should be required for high-occupancy vehicles such as 15-passenger
vans, large sport utility vehicles, school buses, and large trucks and
vans with a GVWR less than or equal to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Fifteen-passenger vans are classified as ``buses'' because
they are designed for carrying more than ten persons. See S571.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicles with a larger number of rear seats may present visual
signal complexities and other challenges. At the same time, such
vehicles could be at least as likely, if not more likely, to have rear
occupants. With respect to school buses, we acknowledge that a rear
seat belt warning requirement might place additional cost burdens on
school systems, given that such cost can lead to reductions in school
bus service, resulting in greater risk to students.\87\ We also note
that school buses of all sizes offer passengers compartmentalization
protection to reduce the risk of crash injury, even to the unbelted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See 76 FR 53102 (Aug. 25, 2011) (denial of a petition for
rulemaking to mandate the installation of three-point seat belts for
all seating positions on all school buses).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek comment on what vehicle types should be included and
excluded, including the costs and benefits of inclusion. We also seek
comment on ways to propose performance requirements that provide
manufacturers with the flexibility to design a warning system that is
appropriate for each vehicle type.
C. Effectiveness
20. NHTSA seeks comment on the effectiveness of rear seat belt
warning systems. NHTSA's research suggests that at least some unbelted
rear seat occupants might be amenable to wearing a seat belt. Seat belt
non-users are typically categorized as either ``part-time'' non-users
or so-called ``hard-core'' non-users.\88\ Part-time non-users are those
non-users who generally express positive attitudes toward seat belts,
but do not always buckle up, due to a range of reasons, such as short
trips, forgetfulness, and being in a rush.\89\ Hard-core non-users are
those who ``generally do not acknowledge the benefits of seat belts and
are opposed to their use.'' \90\ NHTSA's consumer research shows that
part-time non-users make up the majority of non-users (83%), while
hard-core non-users make up a smaller proportion of non-users
(17%).\91\ According to the results of NHTSA's most recent self-
reporting survey of seat belt use, the Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety
Survey (MVOSS), while more than four-fifths of survey respondents said
they always wore their seat belts when driving (88%) or riding as a
passenger in the front seat (86%), only 58 percent said they always
wore their seat belts when riding as a passenger in the rear seat. \92\
Even those who normally wore their seat belts in the front seat were
less inclined to wear their seat belts in the rear. Only 66 percent of
people who said they always wore seat belts while driving also said
they always wore them as rear seat passengers. Of those who wore seat
belts ``most of the time'' as drivers, only a small percentage said
they wore them always (12%) or most of the time (21%) when riding in
the rear.\93\ These part-time non-users might be amenable to strategies
to increase seat belt use.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See, e.g., Transportation Research Board Study, supra, p.
3.
\89\ John M. Boyle & Cheryl Lampkin. 2008. 2007 Motor Vehicle
Occupant Safety Survey, Volume 2, Seat Belt Report. DOT HS 810 975.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration; DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, supra,
p. 1.
\90\ Transportation Research Board Study, supra, p. 40.
\91\ Calculated from Boyle & Lampkin, supra, p. 11 (Fig. 6).
This considers respondents who reported that they ``Never'' or
``Rarely'' used a seat belt to be hard-core nonusers. See
Transportation Research Board Study, supra, p. 31 n.3. This does not
include respondents who indicated that they never drive. The number
of non-drivers surveyed was relatively small. Boyle & Lampkin,
supra, p. 75.
\92\ Boyle & Lampkin, supra, p. iv. This is a national telephone
survey periodically conducted by NHTSA. Because, unlike NOPUS, it is
not observational, the MVOSS is not the best indicator of national
belt use. In addition, because of respondent bias, the large number
of part time users, and the tendency for survey respondents to over-
report belt use, MVOSS use rates have typically been about 10
percentage points higher than those from NOPUS. MVOSS does, however,
provide demographic detail that cannot be observed and insight into
the reasons people do and do not use seat belts. See Donna
Glassbrenner. 2002. Safety Belt and Helmet Use in 2002--Overall
Results. DOT HS 809 500. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
\93\ Boyle & Lampkin, supra, p. 41.
\94\ Transportation Research Board Study, supra, pp. 39-40, 61;
Boyle & Lampkin, supra, pp. 36, 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A rear seat belt warning system can increase rear seat belt use in
two ways: It can remind a rear seat occupant to fasten his or her belt,
and it can inform the driver that a passenger is unbuckled, so that the
driver can request the occupant to fasten their belt. Without a rear
seat belt warning, the driver must turn around to ascertain whether a
rear seat occupant is using a seat belt (or ask the occupant); in some
vehicles, belt use may not be evident to the driver, even if he or she
turned around, due to line-of-sight limitations. In NHTSA's 2015 Survey
of Principal Drivers of Vehicles with a Rear Seat Belt Reminder System,
65 percent of drivers of vehicles equipped with rear seat belt
reminders reported that the rear seat belt reminder made it easier to
encourage the rear seat passengers to buckle up.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Paul Schroeder & Melanie Wilbur. 2015. Survey of Principal
Drivers of Vehicles with a Rear Seat Belt Reminder System.
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, p.
47. [Found in the docket for this ANPRM.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has conducted a variety of research relating to the
effectiveness of in-vehicle seat belt warnings. First, it conducted the
multi-phase seat belt
[[Page 51088]]
warning study that was part of the research program initiated pursuant
to SAFETEA-LU. The analysis demonstrated that the presence of an
enhanced front seat belt reminder system increased front outboard
passenger seat belt use by about 3 to 4 percentage points more than in
vehicles with only a driver seat belt warning system meeting the
minimum requirements in S7.3.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, supra, p. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, NHTSA's 2015 Survey of Principal Drivers of Vehicles with a
Rear Seat Belt Reminder System studied the effectiveness and
acceptability of rear seat belt warnings based on a consumer telephone
survey of the drivers of vehicles with and without rear seat belt
warning systems.\97\ The study found, among other things, that about
one quarter of drivers (24%) of vehicles equipped with a rear seat belt
warning system noticed an increase in rear seat belt use. When asked
about their experience with the change of seat belt buckle status
alert, close to half of drivers of vehicles with a rear seat belt
warning system (49%) said that their system has indicated that a
passenger had unfastened his/her seat belt within the past year.
Overall, of those who reported experiencing a change of seat belt
status alert (49%), over three-quarters of these drivers (77%) said
that the unbuckled passenger eventually did refasten her seat belt,
either on her own or at the driver's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Paul Schroeder & Melanie Wilbur, Survey of Principal
Drivers of Vehicles with a Rear Seat Belt Reminder System.
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(2015). [Found in the docket for this ANPRM.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA seeks comment on whether, and to what degree, a rear seat
belt warning would be effective. We seek comment on specific warning
signal attributes that NHTSA could propose (e.g., duration of an
audible warning), and how effective they might be, especially as
compared to other possible signal attributes.
We also seek comment on how to quantify the effectiveness of a rear
seat belt warning system, including data related to this. Because of
the low prevalence and limited history with rear seat belt warnings,
NHTSA has limited direct data on the effectiveness of rear seat belt
warnings. Can we expect more or less of an increase than the 3-4%
increase for enhanced front warnings? NHTSA requests any data or
studies concerning the effectiveness of rear seat belt warnings. We
also seek comment on balancing effectiveness with costs, technological
feasibility, and acceptability.
With respect to comments that identify an innovative seat belt
warning system differing from the current driver's seat belt warning
and current production front and rear passenger seat belt warnings,
NHTSA seeks comment on such possibilities, and the effectiveness of any
such alternative.
D. Consumer Acceptance
21. NHTSA seeks comment on potential consumer acceptance concerns
with a proposed seat belt warning system.
In order for a rear seat belt warning to have an impact on seat
belt use, it must balance effectiveness with acceptability. The warning
must be noticeable enough to prompt occupants to buckle their seat
belts, but not so intrusive that the public does not accept the warning
system, that an occupant will circumvent or disable it, or that the
warning system could lead to driver distraction that could increase the
risk of a crash.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, supra, p. 2; Transportation
Research Board Study, supra, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer acceptance of any eventual seat belt warning requirements
is an important consideration, given the potential safety benefits of
rear seat belt warnings, the history of seat belt warning technologies,
and the fact that consumers have not yet had widespread exposure to
rear seat belt warnings.
The 2004 Transportation Research Board Report on technologies to
increase seat belt use observed that, while limited, ``the data
available to date provide strongly converging evidence in support of
both the potential effectiveness and consumer acceptance of many new
seat belt use technologies[.]'' \99\ As part of the research for the
report, NHTSA conducted a limited number of focus group interviews with
part-time and hard-core non-users. The report noted that ``many part-
time users interviewed by NHTSA--the primary target group for the
technology--were receptive to the new systems. Nearly two-thirds rated
the reminders ``acceptable,'' and approximately 80 percent thought that
they would be ``effective.'' \100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Transportation Research Board Study, supra, pp. 75-76.
\100\ Id. p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's 2015 Survey of Principal Drivers of Vehicles with a Rear
Seat Belt Reminder System also investigated the acceptability of rear
seat belt warning systems. NHTSA surveyed (by telephone) drivers of
vehicles with and without a rear seat belt warning system.\101\ The
rear warning systems in these vehicles had a visual warning on start-up
and an audio-visual change of status warning. The study found, among
other things, that 81 percent of drivers of vehicles with a rear seat
belt warning were ``very satisfied'' with the system warning at the
beginning of a trip; less than 2 percent were dissatisfied. Seventy-
eight percent of drivers were satisfied with the change-of-status
warning during a trip; about 1 percent were dissatisfied. Among drivers
of vehicles without a rear seat belt warning, attitudes towards rear
belt warnings were generally positive as well: A majority (55%)
indicated that it was important to them that their next vehicle be
equipped with a rear belt warning system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ The vehicles with seat belt warning systems were Volvos
and certain Cadillac and Chevrolet models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA seeks comment on what types of rear seat belt warnings
consumers would accept. NHTSA seeks comment on specifications that
would maximize effectiveness while still being acceptable to the
public, as well as the potential for intrusive warnings to lead to
driver distraction. NHTSA also seeks comment on how the potential for
false positives can be minimized (because false positives can lead
occupants to ignore or circumvent the warnings, or lead to driver
distraction). NHTSA also seeks comment on the results of the 2015
survey, including whether and to what extent, selection bias might
influence the results.
E. Technological and Economic Feasibility
22. NHTSA also seeks comment on the technological and economic
feasibility of alternative rear seat belt warning systems.
We seek comment on the technological and economic challenges that
might be posed by different types of warning systems, including the
type of equipment and re-design they might necessitate. Seat belt latch
and webbing spool-out sensors are already used by many manufacturers to
comply with the existing driver seat belt requirements. We are aware
that implementing a visual warning may require physical redesign of the
instrument panel. Such redesign would have to take into account
visibility, interaction with existing signals and displays, available
space on the instrument panel, and effectiveness, as well as other
factors. In some instances, a visual signal might be displayed as a
telltale on the instrument panel or on the vehicle's information
display screen. Manufacturers would
[[Page 51089]]
also have to determine whether driver and rear passenger seat belt
warning visual signals would be treated the same. Occupant detection
might present technological challenges, but would probably not be
necessary for a positive-only warning system. We recognize that larger
vehicles with many rear designated seating positions may present
challenges. We seek comment on these concerns, as well as other
concerns.
We also seek comment about whether a rear seat belt warning would
reliably detect a child restraint system attached by a child restraint
anchorage system, or LATCH.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Many in the child passenger safety community refer to the
child restraint anchorage system as the ``LATCH'' system, an
abbreviation of the phrase ``Lower Anchors and Tethers for
Children.'' The term was developed by a group of manufacturers and
retailers for use in educating consumers on the availability and use
of the anchorage system and for marketing purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Benefits and Costs
23. The agency has presented a wide variety of different potential
alert systems, all with different cost and effectiveness profiles, and
is not at this time conducting a cost-benefit analysis on any
particular approach. However, many of the technologies discussed in
this ANPRM are currently in use, either for front seat passengers or,
in more limited models, rear seat passengers. NHTSA, therefore, seeks
comment on the potential benefits and costs of the different types of
rear seat belt warning system discussed in this notice, including those
that provide a warning similar to the kinds of seat belt warnings that
are provided in current-production vehicles in the United States or
elsewhere in the world, as well as other potentially novel approaches.
G. Safety Act Criteria
24. MAP-21 instructs NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for
a rear seat belt warning system and to issue a final rule if it would
meet the requirements in section 30111 of the Safety Act. NHTSA seeks
comment on whether a proposed rear seat belt warning system would meet
the requirements and considerations of 49 U.S.C. 30111.
H. Non-Regulatory Alternatives
25. If commenters believe that a proposed seat belt warning system
would not meet the requirements and considerations of 49 U.S.C. 30111,
NHTSA seeks comment on whether it should consider any non-regulatory
approaches to address this issue.
For example, NHTSA might provide recognition through NCAP for
vehicles equipped with a rear seat belt warning system. Other
international NCAP programs, including Euro NCAP, Japan's New Car
Assessment Program (J-NCAP), China NCAP (C-NCAP), Latin NCAP, New Car
Assessment Program for Southeast Asia (ASEAN NCAP), Korean NCAP
(KNCAP), and Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), award
bonus points to vehicles that are equipped with seat belt warning
systems for passenger seating positions. NHTSA could potentially
establish criteria in NCAP for rear seat belt warning systems as it
does for other vehicle safety features. For example, NCAP evaluates the
ability of an automatic emergency braking system to detect the presence
of a vehicle and initiate braking without driver interaction in several
different scenarios (e.g., lead vehicle slowing, lead vehicle stopped).
NHTSA could also issue voluntary guidelines for manufacturers. The
guidelines could identify best practices for manufacturers who wish to
equip vehicles with a rear seat belt warning system. The best practices
could include the type of information the warning system should convey
and the minimum durations of the warnings. NHTSA also seeks comment on
whether there would be any other non-regulatory approaches that would
be appropriate.
I. Removing the Driver's Seat Belt Warning Audible Signal Duration
Upper Limit
26. NHTSA also seeks comment on removing the driver's seat belt
warning audible signal duration upper limit.
FMVSS No. 208 currently requires a driver's seat belt warning with
an audible warning lasting between four and eight seconds. Prior to the
enactment of MAP-21, the agency could not require the audible warning
to operate for more than 8 seconds. As discussed above, Congress
enacted this restriction in 1974. The sole basis for the 8-second
maximum duration in FMVSS No. 208 is this statutory limitation. In
light of Congress's repeal of this restriction, NHTSA seeks comment on
removing the corresponding provision in FMVSS No. 208.
Although NHTSA did not previously have the authority to require, or
specify as a compliance option, a seat belt warning with an audible
signal lasting more than 8 seconds, the agency facilitated the
voluntary adoption of enhanced warnings through a series of legal
interpretations that determined that the Safety Act did not prohibit
manufacturers from using enhanced warning systems (e.g., systems with
audible warnings that lasted more than 8 seconds) as long as the
manufacturer differentiated the voluntarily-provided signal from the
required signal (for example, by a clearly distinguishable lapse in
time between the two signals).
Amending FMVSS No. 208 by removing the 8-second limitation would
eliminate the need to differentiate between signals and give vehicle
manufacturers greater flexibility in designing their seat belt warning
systems. It would not affect the minimum required duration for the
audible signal (4 seconds) and would not require manufacturers to make
any changes to their existing seat belt warnings that comply with the
existing requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
We seek comment on this.
VII. Regulatory Notices
This action has been determined to be significant under Executive
Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Order 2100.6, ``Policies and Procedures for
Rulemakings.'' It has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Order 12866. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review) require agencies to regulate in the ``most cost-effective
manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs,'' and to develop regulations
that ``impose the least burden on society.'' Additionally, Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to provide a meaningful
opportunity for public participation. We have asked commenters to
answer a variety of questions to elicit practical information about
alternative approaches and relevant technical data. Further, in
accordance with DOT Order 2100.6, NHTSA has determined that this
rulemaking, should it lead to a mandate of rear seat belt systems,
would qualify as an ``economically significant rule,'' as it would
likely impose a total annual cost greater than $100 million;
accordingly, NHTSA is using this ANPRM to solicit public feedback
before proceeding with a proposed rule. This action is not subject to
the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017)) because it
is an advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
[[Page 51090]]
VIII. Public Comment
How do I prepare and submit comments?
To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the Docket Number found in the heading of this
document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long.\103\
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments, and there is no limit on the
length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please organize your comments so they appear in the same
order as the topics to which they respond appear in this document.
Please identify comments by the number with which the relevant topic is
associated in this document.
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF
(Adobe) file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to
search and copy certain portions of your submissions.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in
order for substantive data to be relied on and used by NHTSA, it must
meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT
Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, NHTSA encourages you to
consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. DOT's guidelines may
be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.
Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, please remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions you make and provide any
technical information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
To ensure that your comments are considered by the agency,
make sure to submit them by the comment period deadline identified in
the DATES section above.
For additional guidance on submitting effective comments, visit:
https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to the docket at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be
confidential business information, you should include a cover letter
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR part 512)
Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after
that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider
in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will
consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking
action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95
and 501.5.
James Clayton Owens,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-20644 Filed 9-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P