[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61674-61743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18413]
[[Page 61673]]
Vol. 88
Thursday,
No. 172
September 7, 2023
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Part 571
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection, Seat
Belt Reminder Systems; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 61674]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0032]
RIN 2127-AL37
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash
Protection, Seat Belt Reminder Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012
(MAP-21) directs 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.
Pursuant to this mandate and following on an earlier Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, NHTSA is proposing to require a seat belt warning
system for the rear seats of passenger cars, trucks, most buses, and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. This document also proposes to
enhance the existing front seat belt warning requirements, including
requiring a seat belt warning for the front outboard passenger seat and
increasing the duration of the warning.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to be received not
later than November 6, 2023. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act, NHTSA is also seeking comment on a revision to an existing
information collection. For additional information, see the Paperwork
Reduction Act section under the Regulatory Notices and Analyses section
below. All comments relating to the information collection requirements
should be submitted to NHTSA and to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section on or before
November 6, 2023.
DATES: Proposed effective date: The first September 1 that is one year
after the publication of the final rule for the front seat belt warning
system requirements and the first September 1 that is two years after
the publication of the final rule for the rear seat belt warning system
requirements, with optional early compliance permitted. Multi-stage
manufacturers and alterers would have an additional year to comply.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments electronically to the docket
identified in the heading of this document by visiting the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, you can file comments using the following methods:
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call (202) 366-9826 before coming.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number identified in the heading of this document.
Comments on the proposed information collection requirements should
be submitted to: Office of Management and Budget at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. To find this particular information collection,
select ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comment'' or use the
search function. It is requested that comments sent to the OMB also be
sent to the NHTSA rulemaking docket identified in the heading of this
document.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. You may also
access the docket at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room
W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826.
Confidential Business Information: If you claim that any of the
information in your comment (including any additional documents or
attachments) constitutes confidential business information within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) or is protected from disclosure pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1905, please see the detailed instructions given under the
Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document.
Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under the
Regulatory Analyses section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Ms. Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Telephone: (202)
366-4583; Email: [email protected]; Facsimile: (202) 493-2739. For
legal issues, you may contact Mr. John Piazza, Office of Chief Counsel,
Telephone: (202) 366-2992; Email: [email protected]; Facsimile: (202)
366-3820. The address of these officials is: the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Regulatory and Legislative History
IV. ECE Requirements and Euro NCAP
V. NHTSA Research on Effectiveness and Acceptance of Seat Belt
Warning Systems
VI. Safety Need
VII. ANPRM
VIII. NHTSA's Statutory Authority
IX. Overview of Proposed Requirements
X. Proposed Rear Seat Belt Warning
A. Overview
B. Applicability
C. Requirements
1. Visual Warning on Vehicle Start-Up
a. Compliance Options for the Type of Information Conveyed
b. Triggering Conditions
c. Seat Occupancy Criteria and Interaction With Child Restraint
Systems
d. Minimum Duration
2. Audio-Visual Change-of-Status Warning
3. Telltale Location
4. Telltale Characteristics
5. Belt Use Criteria
6. Electrical Connections
7. Owner's Manual Instructions
8. Interaction With Other Vehicle Warnings
D. Alternative Warning Signals
E. Resistance to Intentional and Inadvertent Defeat and
Deactivation
F. Consumer Acceptance
G. Technological and Economic Feasibility
XI. Warning Requirements for Front Outboard Seats
A. Seat Belt Warning for Front Outboard Passenger Seat
B. Driver's Seat Belt Warning for Medium-Sized Buses
[[Page 61675]]
C. Amendments to the Current Warning Signal Requirements
1. Increasing the Duration of the Audio-Visual Warning on
Vehicle Start-Up
2. Requiring an Audio-Visual Change-of-Status Warning
3. Audible Warning Characteristics
4. Visual Warning Characteristics
5. Other Warning Signal Features and Criteria
XII. Other issues
A. Automatic Belts
B. Test Procedures
C. Considerations for Automated Driving Systems
XIII. Regulatory Alternatives
A. ECE R16 and Euro NCAP
B. Occupant Detection and Enhanced Warning Signals for the Rear
Seat Belt Warning
C. Non-Regulatory Alternatives
D. Requiring a Warning System for the Front Center Seat
E. Requiring a 90 Second Duration Seat Belt Warning System for
the Front Outboard Seating Positions
XIV. Overview of Benefits and Costs
A. Proposed Requirements
1. Rear Seat Belt Warning System
2. Front Seat Belt Warning System
3. Overall Benefits and Costs of Proposal
B. Regulatory Alternatives
1. Occupant Detection in Rear Seats
2. 90-Second Front Outboard Seat Belt Warning
3. Seat Belt Warning for Front Center Seat
XV. Proposed Effective Date
XVI. Regulatory Analyses
XVII. Public Participation
Appendix A--Front Outboard Seat Belt Warnings--Additional Data
Proposed Regulatory Text
I. Executive Summary
In 2020, there were 39,007 motor vehicle traffic fatalities in the
United States.\1\ This was 2,652 more fatalities than in 2019 (when
there were 36,355 fatalities).\2\ In 2021, motor vehicle traffic
fatalities increased again to 42,939.\3\ The traffic fatality count in
2021 is the highest since 2005 (43,510) and represents the second year-
to-year increase since 2019.\4\ The 10-percent fatality increase from
2020 to 2021 is the highest year-to-year percentage increase since FARS
started data collection in 1975.\5\ NHTSA has preliminarily estimated
42,795 fatalities in 2022, representing a small decrease of about 0.3%
from 2021.\6\ The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(MAP-21) directed NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking to require a seat belt
warning for the rear seats in motor vehicles. In addition, the
Department of Transportation has released a comprehensive National
Roadway Safety Strategy to address the rise in roadway fatalities and
injuries. Part of that strategy is to make vehicles safer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stewart, T. (April 2023). Overview of Motor Vehicle Traffic
Crashes in 2021 (Report NO. DOT HS 813 435. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, pg. 5.
\2\ Id. at pg. 2.
\3\ Id. at pg. 5.
\4\ Id.
\5\ Id. The 2021 fatality estimates are not entirely final, and
may change somewhat as NHTSA receives further updates or
corrections.
\6\ See https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/nhtsa-estimates-2022-show-roadway-fatalities-remain-flat-after-two-years-dramatic. Though NHTSA acknowledges fatalities essentially remained
flat in 2022, NHTSA does not know if this trend will continue to
remain flat or if there will be further increases in fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with MAP-21 and the National Roadway Safety Strategy,
this NPRM proposes to require a seat belt use warning system \7\ for
the rear seats of passenger cars, trucks, buses (except school buses,
for various reasons detailed in the Applicability section of the
preamble, including practicability and cost concerns), and multipurpose
passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
This NPRM also proposes several changes and enhancements to the
existing front seat belt warning requirements, including increasing the
duration of the audio-visual seat belt warning on vehicle start-up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Seat belt use warning systems may also be referred to in
this preamble as seat belt ``warning systems'' (or SBWS) or seat
belt ``reminder'' systems (or SBRSs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Need for the Proposed Rule
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 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. Seat belts
are effective in most types of crashes, and greatly reduce the risk of
fatal and non-fatal injuries compared to the risk faced by unrestrained
occupants.
While seat belt use is meaningfully higher than it was a decade
ago, there is room for improvement. Usage rates for seat belts in rear
seats have consistently been below those for the front seats, and while
front seat belt use rates increased early in the previous decade, for
the last several years they have plateaued. According to data from
NHTSA's annual study of observed seat belt use, from 2012 to 2021, seat
belt use was lower in the rear seat than in the front seat, ranging
from a difference of about 9 percent in 2013 (78% vs. 87%) to about 14
percent in 2017 (75% vs. 89%).\8\ During that time, front seat belt use
rates ranged from about 86% in 2012 to 91% in 2019. In 2021, front seat
belt use was about 90%, and rear seat belt use was about 78%.
Accordingly, every year, thousands of unrestrained motor vehicle
occupants are killed in crashes, and tens of thousands of unrestrained
occupants are injured (additional details on the target population are
provided in the summary of benefits and costs later in this executive
summary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Boyle, L.L. (2022, August). Occupant restraint use in 2021:
Results from the NOPUS Controlled Intersection Study (Report No. DOT
HS 813 344). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of these unbelted occupants are likely amenable to using a
seat belt. Seat belt nonusers can be categorized as either ``part-
time'' nonusers or so-called ``hard-core'' nonusers. Part-time nonusers
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. Hard-core nonusers are those who
generally do not acknowledge the benefits of seat belts and are opposed
to their use. Consumer research suggests that most nonusers are part-
time nonusers, not hard-core nonusers. This is true even for front seat
occupants, for which there is a relatively high rate of observed seat
belt use. For instance, NHTSA's most recent survey of seat belt use
found that approximately 83% of drivers who did not always use a seat
belt reported using a seat belt most or some of the time, and only 17%
were hard-core nonusers who used seat belts rarely or never.\9\ The
same is true for rear seat passengers who do not always use a belt, of
whom 70% used a belt most or some of the time, while only 30% used a
belt rarely or never.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 2016 MVOSS, p.7 (calculated from Fig. 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat belt warning systems encourage seat belt use by reminding
unbuckled occupants to fasten their belts and/or by informing the
driver that a passenger is unbelted so that the driver can request the
unbelted occupant to buckle up. The warnings provided by seat belt
warning systems typically consist of visual and/or audible signals.
Research by NHTSA and others shows that seat belt warning systems are
effective at getting unbuckled occupants to fasten their seat belt.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ This research is identified and discussed in Section V and
Section XIV.A, as well as the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
docketed with this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant
crash protection,'' requires a short-duration audio-visual seat belt
warning for the driver's seat belt on passenger cars, most trucks and
MPVs with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less,
[[Page 61676]]
and buses with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less. According to the
FMVSS No. 208 standard, the visual component of the warning generally
must be at least sixty seconds long, and the audible component must be
at least four seconds long.
In general, voluntary adoption of warnings that go beyond this
regulatory minimum, while considerable, has been mixed. Although the
regulations do not require seat belt warnings for any seating position
other than the driver's seat, almost all model year (MY) 2022 vehicles
have a voluntarily-provided seat belt warning for the front outboard
passenger seat. However, voluntary adoption for rear seats has been
much slower, as only about 47% come equipped with a voluntarily-
provided rear seat belt warning system (SBWS). Most vehicles already
provide a seat belt warning for both front outboard seats that is much
longer than the minimal required warning for the driver's seat belt,
with the vast majority of vehicles including an alert that is at least
90 seconds. This suggests that the front seat belt warning minimum
requirements in the FMVSS are outdated, as consumers seem clearly
willing to accept audio-visual reminders that are far longer than the
required four seconds.
In short, rear seat belt use rates have persistently been below
those for the front seats, and progress on front seat belt use rates
have slowed. Moreover, unbuckled occupants, in the front and rear
seats, continue to be overrepresented in fatal crashes (51%), given the
lower exposure of unbelted occupants relative to belted occupants
(because front seat belt use was about 90% and rear seat belt use was
80%). Nevertheless, in spite of the effectiveness of seat belts and
seat belt warnings, most new vehicles continue to lack a rear seat belt
warning. Additionally, while most vehicles provide some level of
enhanced reminders for the front seats, this level of enhanced
protection has not occurred for all vehicles and is not standardized.
This suggests a need for a beneficial safety technology that is not
being met in the vehicle market. This NPRM is intended to meet this
safety need and advance NHTSA's response to MAP-21.
Legal Authority and Prior Regulatory History
This proposal is issued pursuant to NHTSA's authority under the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.)
(Safety Act), which authorizes NHTSA to establish Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards. The statute requires safety standards to be
objective, practicable, and meet the need for safety, among other
things. NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the proposed requirements
satisfy these statutory criteria.
This NPRM also continues NHTSA's response to a rulemaking mandate
in MAP-21. MAP-21 required DOT (NHTSA, by delegation) to initiate a
rulemaking proceeding to require rear seat belt warnings and directed
the agency to issue a final rule unless the rule would not meet the
Safety Act requirements for an FMVSS. In accordance with MAP-21, in
2013 NHTSA initiated a rulemaking proceeding when it submitted for
public comment a proposal to undertake a study of the effectiveness of
existing rear seat belt warning systems. In 2019, NHTSA continued with
this rulemaking proceeding by publishing an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comment on a variety of issues related to
potential rear seat belt warning requirements. NHTSA received 45
comments from a variety of organizations and individuals. Most
commenters, including safety advocates, vehicle manufacturers and
suppliers, and individual members of the public, supported a rear seat
belt warning requirement.
This NPRM also responds to a rulemaking petition. Public Citizen
and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety have petitioned NHTSA 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. This proposal is
NHTSA's further action on its grant of this petition.
Summary of the Proposed Amendments
This NPRM proposes amending the existing seat belt warning
provisions in FMVSS No. 208. This proposal has two main components. The
first proposes requiring a rear seat belt reminder for the rear seats.
The second proposes changes and enhancements to the seat belt warning
requirements for the front outboard seats, most notably an audio-visual
warning that persists until the seat belts at any occupied front
outboard seat are fastened. These proposed requirements would apply to
passenger cars and trucks, buses (except school buses), and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or
less.
1. Rear Seat Belt Reminder Requirements
The first component of this NPRM is a set of proposed requirements
for a seat belt warning for rear seats. The proposed requirements have
four main elements.
Visual warning on vehicle start-up to inform the driver of
the status of the rear seat belts. We propose three different
compliance options from which manufacturers could choose for the rear
seat belt warning system. The first would require the system to
indicate how many or which rear seat belts are in use (the ``positive-
only'' option). The second would require the system to indicate, for
the occupied rear seats, how many or which rear seat belts are not in
use (the ``negative-only'' option). The third would require the system
to indicate, for the occupied rear seats, how many or which rear seat
belts are in use and how many or which rear seat belts are not in use
(the ``full-status'' option). Certain features would be required of all
the options. Each system would have to provide a continuous or flashing
visual warning, consisting of either icons or text, visible to the
driver. The visual warning would have to last for at least 60 seconds,
beginning when the vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the ``on'' or
``start'' position. The negative-only and full-status compliance
options would require that the rear seats be equipped with a belt latch
sensor and an occupant detection system (which facilitates these more
informative warnings), while the positive-only option would only
require that the rear seats be equipped with a belt latch sensor.
Audio-visual change-of-status warning. We propose an
audio-visual warning whenever a fastened rear seat belt is unfastened
while the ignition switch is in the ``on'' or ``start'' position and
the vehicle's transmission selector is in a forward or reverse gear.
The warning would have to last for at least 30 seconds. We do not
propose any requirements for the volume or tone of the warning. The
intent of this warning is to alert the driver or other occupants to a
change in belt status during a trip. The warning would not be required
if a door is open, which would be the case if a rear passenger
unfastened their belt in order to exit the vehicle.
Requirements related to electrical connections. Readily
removable rear seats would be required to either automatically connect
to the electrical connections when the seat is put in place, or, if a
manual connection is required, the connectors must be readily-
accessible. Further, vehicles utilizing the negative-only compliance
option would be required to provide a visual warning to the driver if a
proper electrical connection has not been established for a readily
removable rear seat.
Owner's manual requirements. We propose that the vehicle
owner's manual
[[Page 61677]]
(which includes information provided by the vehicle manufacturer to the
consumer, whether in digital or printed form) describe the warning
system's features, including the location and format of the visual
warnings. We also propose that the owner's manual include instructions
on how to make any manual electrical connections for readily removable
seats.
2. Front Outboard Seat Belt Warning Requirements
We propose several changes and enhancements to the seat belt
warning requirements for the front outboard seats. There are three main
changes we are proposing.
Audio-visual warning on vehicle start-up for front
outboard passenger seat. Currently, only the driver's seat is required
to have a seat belt warning, although almost all vehicles now provide a
seat belt warning for the front outboard passenger seat as well.\11\ We
propose to require a seat belt warning for the front outboard passenger
seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Based on data on total projected vehicle sales in the
United States for model year 2022 from the agency's New Car
Assessment Program Purchasing with Safety in Mind: What to Look For
When Buying a Vehicle program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing the duration of the audio-visual warning on
vehicle start-up. We propose enhancing the front seat warning
requirements by requiring an audio-visual warning that remains active
until the seat belt at any occupied front outboard seat is fastened. We
are proposing this in light of a variety of factors, including the
increase in roadway fatalities, the lack of improvement in front seat
belt use rates, and the fact that the audio-visual warnings with which
vehicle manufacturers are currently equipping vehicles significantly
exceed the 4-second regulatory minimum (including a non-trivial share
of currently sold vehicles with an indefinite-duration reminder).
Vehicle manufacturers can adjust warning signal characteristics (such
as frequency and volume) to make the warning both effective and
acceptable to consumers.
Audio-visual change-of-status warning. We also propose to
require an audio-visual change-of-status warning whenever a front
outboard seat belt is unbuckled during a trip (unless a front door is
open, to account for an occupant unfastening the belt to exit the
vehicle). The warning would be required to remain active until the seat
belt is refastened.
Proposed Effective Date
We propose an effective date of the first September 1 that is one
year after the publication of the final rule for the front seat belt
warning system requirements and the first September 1 that is two years
after the publication of the final rule for the rear seat belt warning
system requirements, with optional early compliance (See Section XV for
details). Consistent with 49 CFR 571.8(b), multi-stage manufacturers
and alterers would have an additional year to comply.
Regulatory Alternatives
NHTSA considered a wide range of alternatives to the proposed
requirements. The main alternatives NHTSA considered were the seat belt
warning requirements in Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation
R16 and Euro New Car Assessment Programme (NCAP). The proposed
requirements are identical or similar to ECE R16 and Euro NCAP in many
respects but differ from them in several ways. For instance, while the
ECE rear seat belt warning regulations allow a warning for an
unfastened seat belt at an unoccupied seat, this proposal would not
allow this, because we tentatively believe that the resulting ``false''
warning would potentially annoy drivers and lead to behaviors that
would decrease system effectiveness. Another way the proposal differs
from ECE R16 is the duration of the front seat belt warning on vehicle
start-up: R16 generally requires only a 30-60 second audio-visual
warning; we propose a warning that lasts until the seat belt is
buckled. The regulatory analysis quantifies the costs and benefits of
three specific regulatory alternatives: requiring occupant detection
for the rear seat belt warning system; requiring (for the front
outboard seats) an audio-visual warning on vehicle start-up with a
duration of 90 seconds; and requiring a seat belt warning for front
center seats.
Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Requirements
NHTSA estimates the target population and the benefits and costs of
the proposed requirements in the stand-alone preliminary regulatory
impact analysis (PRIA) that is being placed in the docket with this
NPRM and is summarized in the NPRM.
Based on NHTSA's data on fatalities and injuries from motor vehicle
crashes, adjusted to account for the benefits of other mandatory safety
technologies, there are, on average, 475 fatalities and 7,036 injuries
to unrestrained rear seat occupants and 6,733 fatalities and 47,952
injuries to unrestrained front outboard seat occupants each year. This
is the overall target population--the annual deaths and injuries that
the proposed requirements are aimed at reducing.
NHTSA estimates the benefits it expects from the proposed seat belt
warning requirements. The benefits are the fatalities and injuries that
would be prevented by these proposed requirements. The benefits depend,
principally, on the expected increase in seat belt use and the
effectiveness of seat belts in preventing deaths and injuries.
For the rear seat belt warning system analysis, NHTSA used a
``low'' and a ``high'' estimate for the increase in rear belt use with
the proposed warning system. For occupants 11 years and older, these
were 3 and 5 percentage points, and for occupants from 6 to 10 years
old, 0.3 and 0.4 percentage points.\12\ For simplicity, NHTSA refers to
these scenarios as ``Low'' and ``High,'' or ``3%'' and ``5%.'' The
estimated annual benefits are presented in table 1.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Children in booster seats are part of the target population
for this proposed rulemaking because they should be restrained with
the seat belt and so would benefit from a seat belt reminder. The
transition to a booster seat typically occurs from ages 4-7 years.
\13\ The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) is a classification
system for assessing impact injury severity developed and published
by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine and is
used for coding single injuries, assessing multiple injuries, or for
assessing cumulative effects of more than one injury. MAIS
represents the maximum injury severity of an occupant at an AIS
level, i.e., the highest single AIS for a person with one or more
injuries. MAIS 1 & 2 injuries are considered minor injuries and MAIS
3-5 are considered serious injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way to measure benefits is by calculating equivalent lives
saved (ELS). Equivalent lives saved are the number of prevented
fatalities added to the number of prevented injuries, with the
prevented injuries expressed in terms of fatalities (that is, with an
injury expressed as a fraction of a fatality, so that the more serious
the injury, the higher the fraction). The estimated equivalent lives
saved assuming either a 3% or 7% discount rate are presented in table
2.
[[Page 61678]]
Table 1--Estimated Annual Benefits--Potential Lives Saved and Injuries
Prevented for Positive-Only SBWS (Rear Seats), With Estimated 3% & 5%
Increase in Belt Use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury level 3% (Low) 5% (High)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIS 1.................................. 23.2 34.3
MAIS 2.................................. 40.2 60.3
MAIS 3.................................. 5.6 8.4
MAIS 4.................................. 5.5 8.2
MAIS 5.................................. 0.2 0.3
-------------------------------
Total Injuries...................... 74.7 111.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatal................................... 22.3 33.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Estimated Annual Benefits--Equivalent Lives Saved--Positive-
Only SBWS (Rear Seats)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount
Belt use increase rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% increase (Low)....................... 21.9 17.7
5% increase (High)...................... 32.9 26.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA also estimates the costs of the proposed requirements for
rear seat belt warnings. NHTSA estimates that the minimum cost to
comply with the rear seat belt warning requirements (the positive-only
system) is $166.44 million (M). This is based on a per-vehicle cost of
$19.59 for 53.1% of 16M affected new vehicles.
Based on the forgoing, NHTSA performed benefit-cost and cost-
effectiveness analyses. A benefit-cost analysis calculates the net
benefits, which is the difference between the benefits flowing from
injury and fatality reductions and the cost of the rule. The net
benefit estimates are presented in table 3. The cost-effectiveness
analysis derives the cost per equivalent life saved, which is equal to
the total cost of the rule divided by the total fatal equivalents that
it prevents. These estimates are presented in table 4.
Table 3--Net Benefits--Proposed Positive-Only Rear SBWS
[2020 Dollars, in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net benefits Net benefits
Seat position & belt use Benefits 3% Benefits 7% Cost 3% discount 7% discount
increase discount discount rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% increase (Low)............... $262.1 $212.7 $166.4 $95.6 $46.2
5% increase (High).............. 394.8 320.4 166.4 228.3 153.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Cost per Equivalent Life Saved)--Proposed Positive-Only System (Rear
Seats)
[2020 Dollars, in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat position & belt use ELS 3% ELS 7% Cost/ELS 3% Cost/ELS 7%
increase discount discount Cost discount discount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% increase (Low)............... 21.9 17.7 $166.4 $7.6 $9.4
5% increase (High).............. 32.9 26.7 166.4 5.0 6.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is also proposing enhancing the driver seat belt warning
requirements by requiring an audio-visual warning that remains active
until the driver's seat belt is buckled and extending the driver's seat
belt warning requirements, as modified by this NPRM, to the front
outboard passenger seat. NHTSA estimated the annual benefits of a seat
belt warning for the driver and outboard front passenger that remains
active until the occupant's seat belt is buckled as shown in table 5
and table 6.
Table 5--Estimated Annual Benefits--Lives Saved and Injuries Prevented--Indefinite Duration SBWS (Front Outboard
Seats)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front
Injury level Driver passenger Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIS 1.......................................................... 20.7 3.7 24.4
MAIS 2.......................................................... 120.0 20.5 140.5
MAIS 3.......................................................... 21.6 3.9 25.5
[[Page 61679]]
MAIS 4.......................................................... 17.4 3.1 20.5
MAIS 5.......................................................... 0.5 0.1 0.6
-----------------------------------------------
Total Injuries.............................................. 180.2 31.2 211.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatal........................................................... 65.9 11.4 77.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Estimated Annual Benefits--Equivalent Lives Saved--Indefinite SBWS (Front Outboard Seats)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount
Undiscounted rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver.......................................................... 78.7 65.2 52.8
Front Passenger................................................. 13.6 11.3 9.2
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 92.3 76.5 62.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA estimates that the incremental cost of the enhanced seat belt
warning would be no greater than the currently available seat belt
warning. Although a seat belt warning is currently not required for the
front outboard passenger seats, we estimate that 96 percent of new
vehicles are equipped with them.\14\ NHTSA estimates that the cost for
equipping a front outboard passenger seat with a seat belt warning
system is about $2.13 per vehicle. To equip a seat belt warning system
in the front outboard passenger seat positions on the remaining 4
percent of new vehicle fleet (16 million) without such a warning is
$1.36 million (= $2.13 x 0.04 x 16 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Based on data on total projected vehicle sales in the
United States for model year 2022 from the agency's New Car
Assessment Program Purchasing with Safety in Mind: What to Look For
When Buying a Vehicle program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total monetized benefits, costs, and net benefits (total
monetized benefits--total cost) of the enhanced seat belt warning
system for the driver and front passenger is shown in table 7.
Table 7--Annual Monetized Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits--Indefinite SBWS (Front Outboard Seats)
[2020 Dollars, in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver Front Passenger Driver and Front Passenger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 3% 7% Undiscounted 3% 7% Undiscounted 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger car Benefits................ $422.5 $353.0 $288.0 $79.9 $66.7 $54.4 $502.4 $419.7 $342.4
Light Truck & Van Benefits............ 520.4 427.6 344.8 83.4 68.5 55.2 603.8 496.1 400
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits.................... 942.9 780.5 632.8 163.3 135.2 109.7 1,106.2 915.8 742.5
Total Costs....................... 0 0 0 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits.......................... 942.9 780.5 632.8 161.9 133.9 108.3 1,104.8 914.4 741.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The net benefits of the proposed rule requiring seat belt warning
for rear seating positions and the enhanced seat belt warning for the
front outboard seats are shown in table 8.
Table 8--Net Benefits From the Proposal (SBWS for Rear Seating Positions
and Indefinite SBWS for Front Outboard Seating Positions)
[2020 Dollars, in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount
rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front Outboard Seats.................... $914.4 $741.1
Rear Seats (3% increase in rear seat 95.6 46.2
belt use)..............................
Rear Seats (5% increase in rear seat 228.3 153.9
belt use)..............................
-------------------------------
Total Net Benefits (3% increase in 1,010.0 787.4
rear belt use).....................
Total Net Benefits (5% increase in 1,142.7 895.0
rear belt use).....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61680]]
II. Background
In 2020, there were 39,007 motor vehicle traffic fatalities in the
United States.\15\ This was 2,652 more fatalities than in 2019.\16\ In
2021, motor vehicle traffic fatalities increased again to 42,939.\17\
The traffic fatality count in 2021 is the highest since 2005 (43,510)
and represents the second year-to-year increase since 2019.\18\ The 10-
percent fatality increase from 2020 to 2021 is the highest year-to-year
percentage increase since FARS started data collection in 1975.\19\
NHTSA has preliminary estimated 42,795 fatalities in 2022, representing
a small decrease of about 0.3% from 2021.\20\ The Department of
Transportation has released a comprehensive National Roadway Safety
Strategy to address this rise in roadway fatalities and injuries.\21\
Part of that strategy is making vehicles safer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Stewart, T. (April 2023). Overview of Motor Vehicle Traffic
Crashes in 2021(Report NO. DOT HS 813 435. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, pg. 5.
\16\ Id. at pg. 2.
\17\ Id. at pg. 5.
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id. The 2021 and 2022 fatality estimates are not entirely
final, and may change somewhat as NHTSA receives further updates or
corrections.
\20\ See https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/nhtsa-estimates-2022-show-roadway-fatalities-remain-flat-after-two-years-dramatic. Though NHTSA acknowledges fatalities essentially remained
flat in 2022, NHTSA does not know if this trend will continue to
remain flat or if there will be further increases in fatalities.
\21\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-Roadway-Safety-Strategy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This NPRM proposes to require a seat belt use warning system for
the rear seats of passenger cars, trucks, buses (except school buses),
and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less. This NPRM also proposes to enhance the existing
front seat belt warning requirements, including requiring a seat belt
warning for the front outboard passenger seat and increasing the
duration of the warning. This section provides a brief introduction to
seat belt technology, evidence on seat belt use by vehicle occupants,
and strategies to increase belt use.
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.\22\
Seat belts protect occupants in various ways. They prevent occupants
from being ejected from the vehicle, gradually decelerate the occupant
as the vehicle deforms and absorbs energy, and reduce the occurrence of
occupant contact with harmful interior surfaces and other
occupants.\23\ Seat belts are effective in most types of crashes
(although effectiveness varies for different 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. For rear seat occupants, seat belts reduce the risk of
fatality by 55% (for passenger cars) and 74% (for light trucks and
vans). For front seat occupants, drivers and right front passengers,
seat belts reduce the risk of fatality by 44% (for passenger cars) and
63% to 73% (for light trucks and vans). Seat belts reduce the risk of
injuries by up to 63%.\24\ While the PRIA makes use of these
effectiveness rates, we note that the effectiveness of seat belts is
not impacted by the proposed rule. Instead, benefits from the proposed
rule are the result of the increase in seat belt use resulting from the
warning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., 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''].
\23\ Charles J. Kahane, 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. 89 DOT HS 812 069 at 89,
Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Agency
(2015) [hereinafter ``DOT Lives Saved Study''].
\24\ See the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) (in
the docket for this rulemaking) for these effectiveness estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While seat belt use is meaningfully higher than it was a decade
ago, there is room for improvement. Usage rates for rear belts have
consistently been below those for the front seats, and while front seat
belt use rates increased early in the previous decade, for the last
several years they have plateaued. According to data from NHTSA's
National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), from 2012 to 2021,
seat belt use was lower in the rear seat than in the front seat,
ranging from a difference of 8.8 percent in 2013 (78.3% vs. 87.1%) to
14.3 percent in 2017 (75.4% vs. 89.7%).\25\ During that time, front
seat belt use rates ranged from 86.1% in 2012 to 90.7% in 2019. In
2021, front seat belt use was 90.4% and rear seat belt use was 77.9
percent.\26\ See Figure 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Boyle, L.L. (2022, August). Occupant restraint use in 2021:
Results from the NOPUS Controlled Intersection Study (Report No. DOT
HS 813 344). 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 (68,804 in 2021). NOPUS
observations are made during daylight hours and are not necessarily
representative of high-risk driving times when belt use may be
lower.
\26\ Id.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.000
[[Page 61681]]
Consumer survey research by NHTSA and others (such as the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety and academic researchers) suggests that
many unbelted occupants are likely amenable to using a seat belt. Seat
belt nonusers can be categorized as either ``part-time'' nonusers or
so-called ``hard-core'' nonusers.\27\ Part-time nonusers 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.\28\ Hard-core nonusers are those who ``generally do
not acknowledge the benefits of seat belts and are opposed to their
use.'' \29\ Research by NHTSA and others suggests that most nonusers
are part-time nonusers, not hard-core nonusers. This is true even for
front seat occupants, for which there is a relatively high rate of
observed seat belt use. For instance, NHTSA's most recent survey of
seat belt use found that approximately 83% of drivers who did not
always use a seat belt reported using a seat belt most or some of the
time, and only 17% were hard-core nonusers who used seat belts rarely
or never.\30\ Similarly, for those who did not always use a seat belt
when riding as a passenger in the front, 89% used seat belts most or
some of the time while only 11% used a seat belt rarely or never.\31\
The same was true for rear seat passengers who did not always use a
belt, of whom 70% used a belt most or some of the time, while only 30%
used a belt rarely or never.\32\ Moreover, of the survey respondents
who reported ``always'' using a seat belt while driving, only 66%
``always'' used a seat belt when riding as a passenger in the rear
seat.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See, e.g., Transportation Research Board Study at 3.
\28\ See, e.g., Transportation Research Board Study at 32;
Spado, D., Schaad, A., & Block, A. (2019, December). 2016 motor
vehicle occupant safety survey; Volume 2: Seat belt report (Report
No. DOT HS 812 727). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
at p. 71 (Fig. 53); p. 76 (Fig. 54). 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, which is an
observational study, and therefore a more objective and accurate
measure of belt use. MVOSS does, however, provide demographic detail
that cannot be observed and insight into the reasons people do and
do not use seat belts.
\29\ Transportation Research Board Study at 40.
\30\ 2016 MVOSS, p.7 (calculated from Fig. 5).
\31\ Id. at p. 12 (calculated from Fig. 10).
\32\ Id. at p. 13 (calculated from Fig. 11).
\33\ Id. at p. 64 (Table 15). The MVOSS results are consistent
with, though differ somewhat from, those in a similar survey
conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Chu, M.
Characteristics of Persons Who Seldom or Never Wear Seat Belts,
2002. Statistical Brief #62. December 2004. Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st62/stat62.pdf. The reader is referred to
the discussion in Section XIV.A.2 and in the PRIA, section 4.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has, over time, tried a variety of such strategies, including
sponsoring national media campaigns, supporting the enactment of state
seat belt use laws and high-visibility enforcement, and facilitating or
requiring vehicle-based strategies.\34\ Some of these strategies are
non-regulatory; some are regulatory. One example of a non-regulatory
strategy is NHTSA's annual Click It or Ticket mobilization, which
includes a national advertising campaign backed up by high-visibility
local enforcement of state seat belt laws. Adult rear-seat passengers
are covered by seat belt laws in 32 states and the District of
Columbia. Some of these states with mandatory rear seat belt laws
include rear-seat specific messaging in their media campaigns. While
such measures have helped make enormous progress, the persistent gaps
in seat belt use suggest that additional approaches may be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ NHTSA runs a Congressionally mandated High Visibility
Enforcement (HVE) annual campaign focused on increasing seat belt
use. The Click It or Ticket (CIOT) nationwide campaign has been in
effect for about 20 years. It runs every year from Mid-May through
the Memorial Day weekend, into the first week in June.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat belt warning systems are a vehicle-based strategy to increase
belt use. Seat belt warning systems encourage seat belt use by
reminding unbuckled occupants to fasten their belts and/or by informing
the driver that a passenger is unbelted, so that the driver can request
the unbelted occupant to buckle up.\35\ 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 may attempt to circumvent or disable it or the public will not
accept it.\36\ Research by NHTSA and others shows that seat belt
warning systems are effective at getting unbuckled occupants to fasten
their seat belt. (We take a closer look at this research in Section V
and Section XIV.A, as well as the PRIA.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 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.
\36\ See, e.g., Transportation Research Board Study at 8, 25;
Mark Freedman et al., Effectiveness and Acceptance of Enhanced Seat
Belt Reminder Systems: Characteristics of Optimal Reminder Systems
Final Report. DOT HS 811 097 at 2 (Feb. 2009) (hereinafter ``DOT
2009 Seat Belt Study'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant
crash protection,'' requires a short-duration audio-visual seat belt
warning for the driver's seat belt on passenger cars and most light-
and medium-duty trucks, MPVs, and buses. (Later in this section we
discuss the current requirements in more detail.) The visual component
of the warning generally must be at least sixty seconds long, and the
audible component must be at least four seconds long. The regulations
do not require seat belt warnings for any seating position other than
the driver's seat.
Although not required by NHTSA's regulations, most currently
produced vehicles have a seat belt warning for the front outboard
passenger seat. Almost all (96.6%) MY 2022 vehicles offered for sale in
the United States are equipped with a seat belt warning for the front
outboard passenger seat. Further, almost all vehicles already provide
an audio-visual seat belt warning for both front outboard seats that is
longer than the minimum warning for the driver's seat belt currently
required in FMVSS No. 208. However, the persistence of the front seat
belt warning, while greater than the very minimal durations required by
FMVSS No. 208, is not consistent across currently produced vehicles.
Specifically, a little over half of MY 2022 vehicles provide a visual
warning that lasts until the belts at any occupied front outboard seat
are fastened, and while almost all (about 93%) have an audible warning
lasting at least a minute and a half, less than half have an audible
warning that lasts at least two minutes.\37\ This means that while many
currently produced vehicles have significantly enhanced reminders, many
do not. This, along with the plateauing front seat belt use numbers
suggests that the current regulatory minima are too short, and that in
the absence of a requirement, persistent audible reminders that could
improve front seat belt use may not be widely provided in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Section XI.C.1, Increasing the duration of the audio-
visual warning on vehicle start-up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, while almost all model year MY 2022 vehicles
have a seat belt warning for the front outboard passenger seat, under
half come equipped with a rear seat belt warning system. Rear seat belt
warnings were first introduced in the United States by Volvo around
2009. Based on data on total projected vehicle sales in the United
States for model year (MY) 2022
[[Page 61682]]
from the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Purchasing with
Safety in Mind: What to Look For When Buying a Vehicle program, about
46.9 percent are equipped with a rear seat belt warning system.\38\
Based on this MY 2022 data, fifteen vehicle manufacturers offer
vehicles for sale in the United States with rear seat belt warning
systems. Thus, while rear seat belt warnings have become more widely
deployed in recent years, the majority of the current fleet still is
not equipped with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Through the NCAP program, NHTSA sends annual requests for
safety information about new vehicles to vehicle manufacturers. This
includes specific questions on seat belt reminder systems. The focus
of this request for information is for vehicle models that will be
sold in the upcoming model year that have a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000
lbs.) or less, and this data generally covers all such vehicles
offered for sale in the U.S. for MY 2022. Throughout this document
we will refer to this data as our ``NCAP data'' or ``Purchasing with
Safety in Mind: What to Look For When Buying a Vehicle'' data or
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits of increasing seat belt use could be sizable. The
National Academy of Sciences has noted that ``even a small increase in
belt use should have large benefits.'' \39\ The size of the unbelted
fatality problem for front seats means that even a very modest
improvement in seat belt use will have a meaningful benefit. Our
analysis found that even a 1% increase in belt usage for the driver's
seat resulted in a significant number of lives saved. With respect to
the rear seats, ``while the overall proportion of person-trips taken as
a rear-seat occupant in the U.S. is relatively low (12.9%), at-risk
travel exposure by rear-seat passengers at a national level is
substantial (approximately 39 billion annual person-trips).'' \40\
Moreover, children are proportionally much more likely to be rear seat
passengers than adults,\41\ and the increased prevalence of ridesharing
services has likely increased the prevalence of rear-seat passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Transportation Research Board Study at 19 (citing 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).
\40\ Matthew J. Trowbridge & Richard Kent, Rear-Seat Motor
Vehicle Travel in the U.S.: Using National Data to Define a
Population at Risk. Am. J. Prev. Med. 37(4), 321-3 (2009).
\41\ Trowbridge & Kent at 322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, front seat belt use rates appear to have plateaued, and
rear seat belt use rates have persistently been below those for the
front seats. Moreover, unbuckled occupants continue to be
overrepresented in fatal crashes (51%), given the lower exposure of
unbelted occupants relative to belted occupants (because front seat
belt use was about 90% and rear seat belt use was 80%). Nevertheless,
in spite of the effectiveness of seat belts and seat belt warnings,
most new vehicles continue to lack a rear seat belt warning, and, while
many provide significantly enhanced reminders for the front seats, many
do not. This suggests a need for a beneficial safety technology that is
not being met in the vehicle market. This NPRM is intended to meet that
need.
In Section VI and Section XIV below, and in the PRIA, we take a
detailed look at the estimated target population, effectiveness of
front and rear belt warnings, and benefits and costs of this proposal.
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.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 32 FR 2408, 2415 (Feb. 3, 1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standard currently requires a seat belt warning for the
driver's seat belt on passenger cars; \43\ trucks and MPVs with a GVWR
of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less (except for some compliance options
which do not require the warning); \44\ 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).\45\ The regulations do not require seat belt
warnings for any seating position other than the driver's seat.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ S4.1.5.1(a)(3); S7.3.
\44\ S4.2.6; S7.3.
\45\ S4.2.6 (with the exception of some compliance options).
\46\ 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.''). All NHTSA interpretation letters
cited in this preamble are available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/search.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers have two compliance options for the driver's
warning.\47\ 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.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 49 CFR 571.208, S7.3.
\48\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early NHTSA Experiences With Seat Belt Warnings
Between 1967 and 1974, NHTSA promulgated a series of different
occupant protection regulations that specified as compliance options
various combinations of active and passive occupant crash protection,
seat belt interlocks, and seat belt warnings.\49\ 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.\50\ 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.\51\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ ``Active protection'' refers to features, such as manual
seat belts, that require action by the occupant, while ``automatic
protection'' or ``passive 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).
\50\ 36 FR 4600 (May 10, 1971).
\51\ 37 FR 3911 (Feb. 24, 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the negative consumer reaction, Congress adopted a
provision, as part of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety
Amendments of 1974, prohibiting NHTSA from prescribing a motor vehicle
safety standard that required, or permitted as a compliance option,
seat belt interlocks or audible seat belt warnings lasting longer than
eight seconds.\52\ In response, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 208 in 1974 to
require that only the driver seating
[[Page 61683]]
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.\53\ The limited-duration driver's seat belt warning
requirement has remained in the standard, with some changes, since
1974. Since that time FMVSS No. 208 has not been amended to require
seat belt warnings for any passenger seating positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ These amendments were codified at 49 U.S.C. 30124. As
explained below, the provisions were amended in 2012 by the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.
\53\ 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.\54\ 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 existed that could
increase belt use without being overly intrusive.\55\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ House Report 107-108, June 22, 2001.
\55\ Transportation Research Board Study at 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.\56\ 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 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).\57\ (An
``enhanced'' system is one with visual and/or audible warning signals
that exceed the durations specified in FMVSS No. 208, S7.3, and/or that
applies to seating positions other than the driver's seat. A ``basic''
system is one that simply meets the minimum requirements in FMVSS No.
208.) Many vehicle manufacturers subsequently implemented enhanced seat
belt warnings for the driver and right front outboard seating
positions. Based on information submitted to the agency in connection
with NCAP, for MY 2022, 99.6 percent of participating vehicle models
offered for sale in the United States had an enhanced warning (audible
and/or visual) for the driver, right front passenger, or both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13226.
\57\ See Docket Nos. NHTSA-2001-9899, NHTSA-2002-13379, NHTSA-
2003-14742, NHTSA-2003-15006, and NHTSA-2003-15156.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, Congress passed legislation--the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act--a Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) \58\--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 comprehensive multi-phase research study (explained in
Section V below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Public Law 109-59, 10306 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 21, 2007, Public Citizen and Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety (Advocates, and, collectively, 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.\59\ The petitioners noted that primary enforcement laws
typically do not cover rear seat occupants and that studies have
indicated that warnings for rear seat belts would significantly
increase rear passenger seat belt use. The petitioners stated 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 of how much a rear seat belt warning system could
increase rear belt use. 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. As noted in the
ANPRM,\60\ NHTSA granted the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0061-0002.
\60\ 84 FR 51076 (Sept. 27, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 29, 2010, the agency published a Request for Comments
document (RFC) on the petition.\61\ The RFC discussed the agency's
research and findings regarding requiring rear seat belt warnings and
solicited comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ 75 FR 37343 (June 29, 2010) (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0061).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency received 26 comments. Five commenters opposed requiring
rear seat belt warnings: Ford Motor Company, General Motors, the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), the Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers,\62\ and a commenter from the
general public. These commenters believed that a requirement for rear
seat belt warnings was premature and that it should remain voluntary,
and some supported using NCAP to encourage their penetration in the
market. Among those that supported requiring rear seat belt warnings
were IEE S.A., Consumers Union, the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS), the Automotive Occupant Restraint Council (now known as
the Automotive Safety Council), and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
subsequently became the Association of Global Automakers (Global).
The Alliance and Global have merged to become the Alliance for
Automotive Innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2012, Congress passed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21).\63\ That legislation contains two provisions
regarding seat belt warning systems. First, it repeals the 8-second
durational limit for the driver's seat belt audible warning.\64\
Second, it requires the Secretary of 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.\65\ 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,\66\ to submit a
report to Congress describing the reasons for not prescribing such a
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Public Law 112-141 (2012).
\64\ Id. at section 31202(a)(2) (repealing portion of 49 U.S.C.
30124).
\65\ Id. at section 31503. Authority has been delegated to
NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.95.
\66\ 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 Section VIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\67\ (The results of this study are discussed in
Section V below.) In 2017, the Center for Auto Safety and Kids and Cars
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to compel DOT to initiate
and complete a rulemaking to require a rear
[[Page 61684]]
seat belt warning.\68\ The Court subsequently denied the petition
without prejudice to renewal in the event of significant additional
agency delay.\69\ In 2019, NHTSA published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on a variety of issues related to
potential rear seat belt warning requirements. The ANPRM is discussed
in Section VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ 78 FR 5865 (Jan. 28, 2013).
\68\ In re Kids and Cars, Inc., No. 17-1229, Doc. 1702061 (D.C.
Cir. filed Oct. 30, 2017).
\69\ In re Kids and Cars, Inc., No. 17-1229 (D.C. Cir. June 5,
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. ECE Requirements and Euro NCAP
ECE Requirements
The European Union has issued an updated version of Regulation No.
16 \70\ of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations
(UNECE) that requires seat belt reminder systems in all front and rear
seats on new cars.\71\ The seat belt reminder system is required to
have both a start-of-trip warning and a change-of-status warning for
both the rear and front seats, though the exact requirements differ
somewhat for rear and front seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ ECE Regulation No. 16, Revision 10.
\71\ The regulation was 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear seat requirements. R16 specifies a two-level warning. The
first-level warning is a visual warning and the second-level warning is
an audio-visual warning. The first-level warning applies at the start
of a trip and the second-level warning applies when a fastened belt
becomes unfastened during a trip. The first-level warning must activate
when the seat belt of any of the rear seats is not fastened and the
ignition switch or master control switch is activated. The first-level
warning must last at least 60 seconds or until the belt is fastened (or
the seat is no longer occupied, if equipped with occupant detection).
The second-level warning must activate when a belt becomes unfastened
and certain specified speed or distance thresholds are met and must
last for 30 seconds unless other specified criteria are met (e.g., the
belt is re-fastened).
Front seat requirements. The front seat belt warning requirements
are similar to the rear seat warnings, with some differences. First,
the first-level visual warning is only required to last 30 seconds, not
60 seconds. Second, the second-level warning applies to unfastened
belts at the start of the trip as well as to changes in belt status.
The regulation also contains a variety of other requirements
relating to the seat belt warning systems (e.g., telltales, exemptions
for certain vehicles and seating positions). R16 also allows for short
and long-term deactivation of both front and rear warnings.
The ECE requirements are discussed in more detail where relevant in
later sections of this preamble.
Euro NCAP
Euro NCAP introduced bonus points for seat belt warnings in 2002.
The Euro NCAP protocol for Safety Assist systems describes which
features a seat belt reminder must have to qualify for extra
points.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ European New Car Assessment Programme Assessment Protocol--
Safety Assist, Version 9.1, November 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear seat warnings. For rear seats, a visual signal must start once
the ignition switch is engaged. The visual signal must be at least 60
seconds long. Occupant detection is not required for rear seats, but
systems that feature rear seat occupant detection are eligible for
higher scores. For systems without occupant 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 the vehicle reaches a speed of 25 km/h or
before it travels 500 meters when any occupied seat has an unbuckled
belt.\73\ When any seat belt experiences a change of status at vehicle
speeds above 25 km/h, an audio-visual signal is required, with the
visual signal lasting 60 seconds and the audible warning lasting 30
seconds, unless certain conditions are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front seat warnings. The Euro NCAP protocol requires that, in order
to receive points, at the start of a trip the system must provide a
visual seat belt warning that lasts until the belt is fastened \74\ and
an audible warning that activates when certain conditions are met and
generally must last at least about 90 seconds (the exact duration
depends on a variety of specified criteria, such as vehicle speed or
distance travelled). It also specifies an audio-visual change-of-status
warning that meets the requirements of the initial start of trip
warning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Sction 3.4.2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. NHTSA Research on Effectiveness and Acceptance of Seat Belt Warning
Systems
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
recommend strategies for increasing seat belt use.\75\ 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.'' \76\ 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 included 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See 68 FR 46262 (Aug. 5, 2003).
\76\ 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 on these studies. Three are particularly relevant to
this's NPRM. The first is a large-sample (approximately 40,000
observations) national observational study on the effectiveness of
front seat belt warnings.\77\ 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
[[Page 61685]]
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
uses an experimental or focus-group-based approach to study consumer
acceptance as well as effectiveness.\78\ The third report summarized
and extended the analyses from the previous two reports.\79\ This
series of research studies shows, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ 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.
\78\ 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].
\79\ DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, supra note 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2015 the agency completed an additional report on a study of the
effectiveness and consumer acceptance of rear seat belt warnings.\80\
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% were satisfied with the system and 65%
reported that the rear seat belt warning made it easier to encourage
rear seat passengers to buckle up. 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 the
drivers of vehicles with a rear seat belt warning system (49%) said
that their system had indicated, within the past year, that a passenger
had unfastened his/her seat belt. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2021, NHTSA published an update of the 2009 Belt Warning
Study.\81\ The purpose of the report was to examine the front seat belt
warning system features associated with greater effectiveness in
increasing seat belt use. Because of limitations with the collected
data, the findings of the report were relatively limited. However, the
report found (consistent with the earlier research) that ``systems with
sound, icon, and text had generally higher seat belt use rates than
systems without all of these features.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Polson, A., Lerner, N., Burkhardt, E., Piesse, A., Zador,
P., & Janniello, E. (2021, October). Enhanced seat belt reminder
systems: An observational study examining the relationship with seat
belt use (Report No. DOT HS 812 808). National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Pg. 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of this research are discussed in more detail
throughout the preamble. The relevant research reports have also been
placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
VI. Safety Need
As noted earlier, rear seat belt use has consistently been lower
than front seat belt use. NHTSA estimated the target populations for
rear and front outboard passenger seat belt warnings, as well as the
effectiveness of the warnings. This section provides a summary of these
estimates. For additional discussion of the methodology used to derive
these estimates, see the discussion in the Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis as well as the studies placed in the docket.
To estimate the target populations for the rear and front passenger
seats--that is, the number of unrestrained occupants who could be
expected to potentially benefit from the proposed seat belt warning
requirements--NHTSA examined data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS) \82\ and the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) \83\ from 2011 to 2015. Because seat
belts are effective at preventing deaths and injuries in all types of
motor vehicle crashes,\84\ the target populations include fatalities
and injuries from different crash modes. We examined fatalities and
injuries for occupants in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and MPVs with
a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less (the vehicles [with some
exceptions] to which the proposed requirements would apply). We
adjusted these to account for future decreases in fatalities and
injuries projected to occur in the absence of the proposed requirements
due to the introduction of other mandatory safety technologies (e.g.,
electronic stability control, ejection mitigation side curtain air
bags).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See NHTSA, NCSA Reports and Publications, https://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS. FARS contains data on a census of fatal traffic
crashes within the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. To be included in FARS, a crash must involve a motor vehicle
traveling on a traffic way customarily open to the public, and must
result in the death of an occupant of a vehicle or a non-occupant
within 30 days of the crash.
\83\ The CDS target population is defined as police-reported
motor vehicle traffic crashes involving at least one passenger car,
pickup, van, or SUV (also called CDS applicable vehicles) that was
towed from the scene due to damage.
\84\ DOT Lives Saved Study at 106 (front seats); Id. at 112
(rear seats). Seat belts are less effective in severe near-side
impacts or other catastrophic crashes. Id. at 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on FARS and NASS-CDS data from 2011 to 2015, on average 1,002
unrestrained rear occupants were killed in crashes and 7,821 were
injured annually.\85\ After adjusting these to account for future
decreases in fatalities and injuries projected to occur in the absence
of the proposed requirements due to the introduction of other mandatory
safety technologies, there were, on average, 475 fatalities and 7,036
injuries to unrestrained rear seat occupants each year. This is the
overall target population for the proposed rear seat belt warning
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See PRIA, Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning to the target population for the driver and front outboard
passenger seat, from 2011 to 2015, annually an average of 7,503
unrestrained drivers were killed in crashes and an average of 1,453
unrestrained front outboard passenger seat occupants were killed in
crashes and 63,436 unrestrained drivers and front outboard passenger
occupants were injured.\86\ After adjusting these to account for future
decreases in fatalities and injuries projected to occur in the absence
of the proposed requirements due to the introduction of other mandatory
safety technologies, there were, on average, 6,733 fatalities and
47,952 injuries to unrestrained front outboard seat occupants each
year. This is the overall target population for the proposed front
outboard passenger seat belt warning requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See PRIA, Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. ANPRM
On September 27, 2019, in accordance with the grant of the petition
from Public Citizen and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and
continuing with the proceeding that MAP-21 required to be initiated,
NHTSA published an ANPRM for requiring rear seat belt warning
systems.\87\ The ANPRM sought
[[Page 61686]]
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. It
also sought comment on removing the 8-second maximum duration for the
driver's seat belt warning specified in FMVSS No. 208 S7.3 to reflect
MAP-21's repeal of the statutory limitation that was the basis for this
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ 84 FR 51076 (Sept. 27, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment period closed on November 26, 2019. NHTSA received 45
comments: five comments from vehicle manufacturers; two from school
transportation associations; two from vehicle manufacturer
associations; seven from safety advocacy groups; seven from automotive
industry suppliers and trade associations; one comment each from a
foreign country, insurance institute, consumer program, and bus
manufacturer; and eighteen comments from individual members of the
public.
Most commenters, including safety advocates, vehicle manufacturers
and suppliers, and individual members of the public, supported a rear
seat belt warning requirement. Some commenters (including a bus
manufacturer, a bus supplier, an association of school bus operators,
and some individual commenters) recommended that the requirements not
apply to heavy vehicles such as buses or school buses, citing concerns
with installation, costs, the driver's role, and maintenance.
Vehicle manufacturers and suppliers commented that the requirements
should harmonize with ECE R16, while some other commenters
(predominantly safety advocacy groups) supported departures from the
ECE R16 requirements, arguing that harmonization should not come at the
expense of safety. Thus, while most commenters supported requiring a
visual warning on vehicle start-up and an audio-visual change-of-status
warning for a belt that is unfastened when the vehicle is moving, some
commenters favored requiring enhanced features such as an audio-visual
warning on vehicle start-up and occupant detection.
A few commenters (Advocates, Kids and Cars, Center for Auto Safety)
pointed out the delays with this rulemaking and the urgency for a final
rule. Most vehicle manufacturers supported removing the upper limit on
the duration of the audible warning for the driver's seat belt.
VIII. NHTSA's Statutory Authority
NHTSA is proposing this's NPRM pursuant to its authority under the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
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.\88\ ``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.'' \89\ ``Motor vehicle safety standard'' means a minimum
performance standard for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.\90\
When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider all
relevant, available motor vehicle safety information.\91\ 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.\92\ The responsibility for
promulgation of Federal motor vehicle safety standards is delegated to
NHTSA.\93\ In making the proposals in this's NPRM, the agency carefully
considered all the aforementioned statutory requirements. They are
discussed in more detail throughout the preamble and in the regulatory
analyses. In addition, MAP-21 directed NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking
to require a seat belt warning for the rear seats in motor vehicles
(see Section III, Regulatory and Legislative History).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\89\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).
\90\ Section 30102(a)(10).
\91\ Section 30111(b)(1).
\92\ Section 30111(b)(3)-(4).
\93\ See 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. Overview of Proposed Requirements
As previously mentioned, this NPRM proposes amending the existing
seat belt warning provisions in FMVSS No. 208. This proposal has two
main components. The first proposes requiring a seat belt reminder for
the rear seats. The second proposes changes and enhancements to the
seat belt warning requirements for the front outboard seats. These
proposed requirements would apply to passenger cars and trucks, buses
(except school buses), and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR
of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
Rear Seat Belt Reminder Requirements
The first component of this NPRM is a set of proposed requirements
for a seat belt warning for rear seats. The proposed requirements have
four main elements.
Visual warning on vehicle start-up to inform the driver of
the status of the rear seat belts. We propose three different
compliance options for the rear seat belt warning system. The first
would require the system to indicate how many or which rear seat belts
are in use (the ``positive-only'' option). The second would require the
system to indicate, for the occupied rear seats, how many or which rear
seat belts are not in use (the ``negative-only'' option). The third
would require the system to indicate, for the occupied rear seats, how
many or which rear seat belts are in use and how many or which rear
seat belts are not in use (the ``full-status'' option). Certain
features would be required of all the options. Each system would have
to provide a continuous or flashing visual warning, consisting of
either icons or text, visible to the driver. The visual warning would
have to last for at least 60 seconds, beginning when the vehicle's
ignition switch is moved to the ``on'' or ``start'' position. The
negative-only and full-status compliance options would require that the
rear seats be equipped with a belt latch sensor and an occupant
detection system (which facilitates these more-informative warnings),
while the positive-only option would only require that the rear seats
be equipped with a belt latch sensor.
Audio-visual change-of-status warning. We propose an
audio-visual warning whenever a fastened rear seat belt is unfastened
while the ignition switch is in the ``on'' or ``start'' position and
the vehicle's transmission selector is in a forward or reverse gear.
The warning would have to last for at least 30 seconds. We do not
propose any requirements for the volume or tone of the warning. The
intent of this warning is to alert the driver or other occupants of a
change in belt status during a trip. The warning would not be required
if a door is opened, which would be the case if a rear passenger
unfastened their belt in order to exit the vehicle.
[[Page 61687]]
Requirements related to electrical connections. Readily
removable rear seats would be required to either automatically connect
the electrical connections when the seat is put in place, or, if a
manual connection is required, the connectors must be readily-
accessible. Further, vehicles utilizing the negative-only compliance
option would be required to provide a visual warning to the driver if a
proper electrical connection has not been established for a readily
removable rear seat.
Owner's manual requirements. We propose that the vehicle
owner's manual (which includes information provided by the vehicle
manufacturer to the consumer, whether in digital or printed form)
describe the warning system's features, including the location and
format of the visual warnings. We also propose that the owner's manual
(which includes information provided by the vehicle manufacturer to the
consumer, whether in digital or printed form) include instructions on
how to make any manual electrical connections for readily removable
seats.
Front Outboard Seat Belt Warning Requirements
We propose several changes and enhancements to the seat belt
warning requirements for the front outboard seats:
Audio-visual warning on vehicle start-up for front
outboard passenger seat. Currently, only the driver's seat is required
to have a seat belt warning, although almost all vehicles now provide a
seat belt warning for the front outboard passenger seat as well.
Accordingly, we propose to require a seat belt warning for the front
outboard passenger seat. In addition, for an ADS-equipped vehicle that
has no manually-operated driving controls, we are proposing that the
front passenger warning apply to ``any'' front outboard passenger.
Increasing the duration of the audio-visual warning on
vehicle start-up. We propose enhancing the front seat belt warning
duration by requiring an audio-visual warning that remains active until
the seat belt at any occupied front outboard seat is fastened. We are
proposing this in light of a variety of factors, including the increase
in roadway fatalities, the lack of improvement of front seat belt use
rates, and the fact that the audio-visual warnings with which vehicle
manufacturers are currently equipping vehicles significantly exceed the
4-second regulatory minimum (including a non-trivial share of currently
sold vehicles with an indefinite-duration reminder). Vehicle
manufacturers can adjust warning signal characteristics (such as
frequency and volume) to make the warning both effective and acceptable
to consumers. We are also proposing some additional requirements for
the warning related to increasing the duration (for example, specifying
at least a 20 percent duty cycle for the warning).
Audio-visual change-of-status warning. We also propose to
require an audio-visual change-of-status warning whenever a front
outboard passenger seat belt is unbuckled during a trip (unless a front
door is opened, to account for an occupant unfastening the belt to exit
the vehicle). The warning would be required to remain active until the
seat belt is refastened.
Driver seat belt warning for medium-sized buses. FMVSS No.
208 currently does not require a driver seat belt warning for medium-
sized buses (roughly, buses that weigh between 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) and
4,536 kg (10,000 lb)). We are now proposing to require that these buses
be equipped with a driver seat belt warning. NHTSA is unaware of any
such buses that do not already have an FMVSS No. 208-compliant driver
seat belt warning.
Effective Date
We propose an effective date of the first September 1 that is one
year after the publication of the final rule for the front seat belt
warning system requirements and the first September 1 that is two years
after the publication of the final rule for the rear seat belt warning
system requirements, with optional early compliance. For example, if
the final rule were published on October 1, 2022, the effective date
would be September 1, 2024 for the front seat belt warning system
requirements and September 1, 2025 for the rear seat belt warning
system requirements. Consistent with 49 CFR 571.8(b), multi-stage
manufacturers and alterers would have an additional year to comply.
X. Proposed Rear Seat Belt Warning 94
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Comments are from the ANPRM unless otherwise noted. As
discussed in more detail in the regulatory alternatives section,
many commenters (OEMs and trade groups) generally recommended
harmonizing with R16 and/or other NCAP programs. In the following
sub-sections, we include comments that specifically recommended
harmonizing with R16 or Euro NCAP with respect to the particular
issue being discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Overview
The proposed rear seat belt warning requirements have four main
components: a visual warning on vehicle start-up to alert and inform
the driver of the status of the rear seat belts; an audio-visual
change-of-status warning when a rear seat belt is unbuckled during a
trip; requirements for the electrical connections for readily removable
seats; and owner's manual requirements. We also propose requirements
for several characteristics of this warning, such as duration and
triggering conditions. We also discuss related issues such as hardening
the system against user circumvention, consumer acceptance, and
technological and economic feasibility.
The proposed changes would apply to all rear designated seating
positions in passenger cars, trucks, buses (except school buses), and
MPVs with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
B. Applicability
The ANPRM sought comment on the vehicles to which a rear seat belt
warning requirement should apply. The current FMVSS No. 208 generally
requires rear seat belts in passenger cars, trucks, MPVs, buses less
than 10,000 lb, over-the-road buses between 10,000 lb and 26,000 lb,
and buses greater than 26,000 lb (except school, perimeter-seating, and
transit buses). We observed that high-occupancy vehicles might pose
challenges for implementing a rear warning system due to the potential
complexities of the visual signal, number of seats, and other issues.
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, a
rear seat belt warning requirement might place additional cost burdens
on school systems, potentially leading to reductions in school bus
service, with a concomitant increased risk to students.\95\ We also
noted that school buses utilize compartmentalization to reduce the risk
of crash injury, even to the unbelted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ECE R16 rear belt warning requirements apply to M1 and N1
vehicle categories (passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
vans, pick-ups and light trucks), with exemptions for ambulances,
hearses, and motor-caravans, as well as for all seats for vehicles used
for transport of persons with disabilities, vehicles intended for use
by the armed services, civil defense, fire services and forces
responsible for maintaining public order.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Sec. 8.4.1.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61688]]
Comments
Advocates commented that the requirements should apply, at a
minimum, to all passenger vehicles, and should apply in all vehicles in
which data indicates belt non-use is occurring. Freedman Seating
Company (a manufacturer of seating for the transportation industry)
favored a requirement for all vehicles (and, presumably, seating
positions) requiring Type 2 seat belts.\97\ A number of commenters
recommended that the requirements harmonize with R16. Two commenters
stated that, consistent with ECE R16-07, vehicles such as ambulances,
hearses, and police cars should be exempt from any requirements. Two
commenters similarly stated that the rule should only apply to vehicles
under 10,000 pounds GVWR (with some specific exclusions for certain
vehicle types). A commenter argued that while there might be benefits
to a requirement for commercial vehicles and buses, it could pose
considerable challenges for those vehicles, so any requirements for
larger vehicles should be considered in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ A Type 1 seat belt assembly is a lap belt for pelvic
restraint, and a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of
pelvic and upper torso restraints (3-point belt). Type 2 belts are
required for most rear seats in passenger cars. S4.1.5.5. Type 2
belts are also required for most rear seats on buses required to
have rear seat belts. Type 2 belts are also required on most rear
seats in trucks and MPVs less than or equal to 10,000 lb. Type 2
belts generally are not required on side-facing seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also received several comments specifically about applicability
to buses. One comment stated that seat belt reminder systems should be
included in vehicles 10,000 lb and under, including high-occupancy
vehicles such as 15-passenger vans and school buses, given the
likelihood of vulnerable (e.g., children) rear seat passengers and the
difficulty for the driver to determine if occupants are belted. Other
commenters opposed a requirement for some or all buses. A commenter
opposed requirements for any buses based on what it characterized as
the complexity, cost, potential for driver distraction, and lack of
data supporting effectiveness.\98\ A commenter stated that rear seat
belt warnings should not be required in motorcoaches; \99\ while
technically feasible, such a requirement would be costly and not
suitable. The commenter's concerns were similar to those that detailed
for school buses (see below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Blue Bird's comment was unclear, because it also
specifically commented that it was opposed to any changes which
expand the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 for buses with a GVWR
greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb), including the proposed requirement
for rear passenger seat belt warning systems.
\99\ We assume that this refers to traditional motorcoaches
which are over 10,000 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters argued that school buses should be excluded from
any requirements. They made a variety of arguments on this point.
The commenters argued that a requirement for school buses would be
prohibitively expensive. One commenter stated that it could dissuade
pupil transporters from voluntarily equipping large buses with seat
belts, as well as provoke objections to laws that require them. Several
comments questioned the technical feasibility and the potential for
malfunctions and false alarms. A commenter stated that because of the
complexity of any system required for a vehicle with a large number of
rear seating positions, improper detection is a real possibility. Two
commenters similarly said that the sensors might not be sophisticated
enough to deal with the variations found in the school bus operating
environment, because children that ride in school buses are of varying
ages and sizes, with NSTA noting the possibility of false alarms. A
commenter stated that the school bus interior is a harsh environment
and the necessary wiring and connections are subject to failure by
exposure or tampering; this failure for hardwired systems could be
eliminated through use of wireless technology, but transmitting devices
are also subject to failure, and require power. However, some
commenters noted that rear warnings for school buses may be technically
feasible and are, to some extent, currently available.
Two commenters also raised potential unintended consequences of
school bus driver distraction. A commenter brought up that driver
distraction is perhaps the greatest concern for the implementation of
warning device technology in school buses. The primary function of the
school bus driver is to safely transport the student passengers; the
bus driver must be able to fully focus on driving, so each activation
of a warning would require a bus driver to transfer focus to the
display source to read the data, understand the data, then interpret
the data to the exact student/location in the bus. At that point, the
driver would need to direct the student to buckle up if that is the
actual need. This situation could occur simultaneously with several
students. In driving situations with high-density urban traffic or
high-speed rural two-lane roads with much commercial vehicle traffic,
the potential for a crash could significantly increase.
A couple of commenters questioned the ability of school bus drivers
to ensure that student occupants use the seat belts. A commenter
questioned what a driver faced with a seat belt warning should do:
Would the driver be required to walk the aisle like an airplane flight
attendant inspecting the entire bus and requiring students to buckle
up? Would the driver be required to refuse to move the bus until all
belts are buckled? The commenter also questioned whether it is the
responsibility of the driver or the passenger to obey any applicable
state law (along with parental and school information and
encouragement) and ensure the belt is fastened. Another commented
similarly stated that the driver's ability to ensure seat belt use is
limited; the student passengers' failure to comply often comes after
repeated requests to do so from school bus drivers or aides. A few
commenters also had concerns about potential legal liability for
operators and drivers. A commenter stated that school districts would
need to determine if the failure of a warning system to properly
function would require that the seating position be rendered unusable,
and another commenter said that it was unclear if the presence of a
seat belt warning system would make the driver legally liable in a
crash for injuries to unbelted students. The commenter further wondered
whether the addition of such a system would force school systems to
hire bus monitors to supervise belt use, adding a significant cost to
state and local budgets. Along these lines, the commenter recommended a
hold-harmless provision in the regulations to cover school bus
operators for instances where a student passenger evades a seat belt
restraint system and sustains injuries.
Related to this, two commenters mentioned the possibility of
circumvention in school buses. One commenter noted the ability of
passengers to defeat the systems (either intentionally or
unintentionally); sophisticated sensor design would be required to warn
the driver of non-use in these cases. Another commenter said that an
occupant could buckle the belt behind him/her, thus turning off the
alarm without having complied with the purpose of the alarm.
A commenter stated that a seat belt warning on school buses would
lead to routing delays, due to additional time required at each stop to
ensure that students were belted. The commenter also noted the
potential effects of stopped buses (especially during rush hours).
Another commenter said that system malfunctions would result in a
school bus being removed from service and raised the possibility of a
malfunction occurring mid-trip, which
[[Page 61689]]
would present the operator the issue of whether to continue operating
the bus or not.
Agency Response
This proposal applies to all rear designated seating positions in
passenger cars and all rear designated seating positions certified to a
compliance option requiring a seat belt in trucks, buses, and MPVs with
a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, except for school buses and law
enforcement vehicles. We propose to apply the proposed requirements to
these categories of vehicles because these vehicles are required to
have seat belts at all rear designated seating positions and (except
for some buses) a seat belt warning for the driver's seat.\100\ We note
that some types of trucks and MPVs (motor homes, walk-in van-type
trucks, vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal
Service, or vehicles between 8,500-10,000 lbs carrying a chassis-mount
camper) \101\ and over-the-road buses that are also prison buses \102\
are not required to have rear seat belts. The proposed applicability is
largely consistent with ECE R16, except that we are not proposing to
exempt special-purpose vehicle types such as ambulances because they
are typically customized after first sale.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Buses with GVWRs greater than 8,500 lb and less than or
equal to 10,000 lb are currently not required to have a driver's
seat belt warning. See FMVSS 208, S4.4.3.1. We propose to close this
loophole. See Section XI.B.
\101\ S4.2.7.1.
\102\ S4.4.3.3; S4.4.5.1.
\103\ See 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1) (a FMVSS does not apply to,
among other things, ``the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or
delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of a motor vehicle
or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of the vehicle
or equipment in good faith other than for resale'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe it is particularly important to include vehicles with a
GVWR greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb), but less than or equal to 4,536
kg (10,000 lb)--including buses other than school buses--because this
includes high occupancy vehicles (e.g., large capacity passenger vans
and large sport utility vehicles [SUVs]).\104\ We also believe an
increasing number of large trucks and vans are used as personal
vehicles and are not solely used for work-related purposes. In
addition, multiple rear seats or rows make it more difficult for the
driver to ascertain rear seat belt use, so a warning could prove
especially useful in these vehicles. We also recognize that the intent
of the MAP-21 mandate is to improve protection for rear occupants;
given the proven benefits of seat belts, we tentatively believe the
warning should be broadly applied. We acknowledge that vehicles with a
larger number of rear seats may encounter visual signal complexities.
Accordingly, our intent is to propose performance requirements that
provide manufacturers with the flexibility to design a warning system
that is appropriate for each vehicle type. We chose to limit the
application of the passenger seating requirements to light-duty
vehicles (less than or equal to 10,000 lb). Several commenters were all
in agreement with excluding vehicles over 10,000 lb; it is consistent
with the petition and with the applicability of the current seat belt
warning system requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Fifteen-passenger vans are classified as buses under the
FMVSS because they are designed for carrying more than ten persons.
See 49 CFR 571.3 (``Bus means a motor vehicle with motive power,
except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.'')
(italics in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have tentatively decided to exclude all school buses (including
those weighing under 10,000 lb [small school buses]) because of
practicability issues. First, the agency is concerned about the costs
to school systems, which could lead to reductions in school bus
service, resulting in greater risk to students. Second, we are
concerned about the burdens such systems might place on the driver. For
example, with a rear seat belt warning system without occupant
detection (the minimum compliance option that we are proposing in this
NPRM), the school bus driver would have to verify that all the
passengers are using their seat belts based on the system's visual
signal that identifies how many or which rear seat passengers are
belted. We tentatively agree with the commenters who argued that is not
practicable. This concern might be mitigated, in part, by a more robust
system utilizing occupant detection, but we do not believe that would
be practicable at this time.\105\ Third, school buses of all sizes
offer passengers compartmentalization protection to reduce the risk of
crash injury, even to the unbelted. Such protection is not offered in
other vehicles. Finally, we note various other concerns raised by the
commenters and summarized above, including the possibility of school
buses being out of service due to malfunctioning reminder systems, and
potential liability issues for school districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ More discussion of occupant detection systems is provided
in Section XIV.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law enforcement vehicles would also be exempt from the proposed
requirements because of concerns with practicability: the rear seats
are mainly used to transport passengers that are under arrest and
normally handcuffed, so if the policy of the police agency is that
prisoners be transported with their seat belts fastened then the
officer would be responsible for fastening the seat belt around the
prisoner(s) and thus would already be aware of the belt status of the
rear seat occupants. The term ``law enforcement vehicle'' is already
defined in FMVSS No. 208 to mean ``any vehicle manufactured primarily
for use by the United States or by a State or local government for
police or other law enforcement purposes.''
We seek comment on our proposed applicability requirements.
C. Requirements
This NPRM proposes a visual warning on vehicle start-up and an
audio-visual change-of-status warning if a belt is unbuckled during a
trip. We also propose a variety of requirements with respect to the
warning triggering conditions, duration, telltale, and electrical
connections, among other things.
1. Visual Warning on Vehicle Start-Up
This NPRM proposes a visual warning to alert and inform the driver,
upon vehicle start-up, to the status of the rear seat belts. We also
propose minimum performance requirements for several aspects of this
warning.
a. Compliance Options for the Type of Information Conveyed
The ANPRM sought comment on whether NHTSA should require a warning
at the start of the trip, whether such a warning should be visual-only
or audio-visual, and what type of information the visual warning should
convey. NHTSA identified three potential types of warnings. One would
require the system to indicate how many or which rear seat belts are in
use (a ``positive-only'' system). The second would require the system
to indicate, for the occupied rear seats, how many or which rear seat
belts are not in use (``negative-only''). The third requires the system
to indicate, for the occupied rear seats, how many or which rear seat
belts are in use and how many or which rear seat belts are not in use
(``full-status''). The second and third types of warnings identified
would require that the system be capable of determining which rear
seating positions are occupied (i.e., would require an occupant
detection system). NHTSA also sought comment on whether some or all of
the compliance options should require occupant detection.
ECE R16 requires a visual warning at the start of a trip, but not
an audible
[[Page 61690]]
signal.\106\ The visual warning must remain active until none of the
belts that triggered the warning are unfastened, the seat(s) which
triggered the warning are no longer occupied, or 60 seconds has
elapsed.\107\ The visual warning must ``indicate at least all rear
seating positions to allow the driver to identify, while facing forward
as seated on the driver seat, any seating position in which the safety-
belt is unfastened.'' \108\ Occupant detection is not required, but in
vehicles that do have occupant detection the warning does not need to
indicate unfastened belts for unoccupied seating positions.\109\ This
warning may be canceled by the driver.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Section 8.4.4.1; Section 8.4.2.3.1.
\107\ Section 8.4.2.3.1; Sec. 8.4.2.3.2.
\108\ Section 8.4.4.2.
\109\ Section 8.4.4.2.
\110\ Section 8.4.4.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Euro NCAP's rating protocol also requires a visual warning at the
start of a trip. The requirements are similar to ECE R16. Euro NCAP's
rating protocol does not require occupant detection but incentivizes
systems that use occupant detection by awarding additional points for
this feature. For systems without occupant detection, the visual signal
must show belts in use and not in use.\111\ For systems with occupant
detection, 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 as
long as the seat belts remain unfastened on any of the occupied seats
in the rear; \112\ no visual signal is required if no rear occupants
are detected.\113\ Systems with occupant detection must also provide a
30-second audible signal at the start of the trip before specified
speed or distance thresholds have been crossed.\114\ Alternatively, if
occupant detection is provided the manufacturer may use the same
warning strategy as specified for the front seats.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Section 3.4.3.1.4.
\112\ Section 3.4.3.1.3.
\113\ Section 3.4.3.1.1.
\114\ Section 3.4.3.2.3. The thresholds are (at the choice of
the OEM) either a forward speed of 25 km/h or forward motion for 500
m.
\115\ Section 3.4.3.2.3. For front seat belts, the assessment
protocol requires both a visual and an audible warning signal (see
Section 3.4.2). The visual signal must remain active until the seat
belt is fastened. The audible signal 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 seats are occupied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Most commenters explicitly endorsed a warning on start-up, and none
opposed it, although the comments differed on whether it should have an
audible component. Two comments recommended harmonizing with the ECE
R16 requirement for a visual-only warning on start-up. A commenter
stated that NHTSA should provide flexibility in terms of the type of
information that is required to be communicated by the reminder system,
including positive-only, negative-only, and full-status systems, with
consideration for both occupant-detection and non-occupant-detection
centric approaches. Based on the definitions provided within the ANPRM,
the baseline standard for R16 could be met through a non-occupant
detection, positive-only system, but would not prohibit additional
technology features to provide additional functionality. Another
commenter agreed that positive-only, negative-only, and full-status
systems each could have strengths and limitations; the priority should
be that all of these variations effectively allow the driver to
identify which seats are unfastened (in the case without occupant
detection), or if any occupied seats are unfastened (with occupant
detection). The commenter noted that R16 does not establish such
definitions of systems, but rather specifies the base requirement that
the driver should be able to identify which seats are unfastened. The
comment stated that NHTSA should not set criteria too broadly, which
could restrict manufacturers to implementing a full-vehicle display,
even if occupant detection is applied, in which case a single seat belt
telltale indicator is sufficient.
Three commenters recommended a visual-only warning. A commenter
stated that a visual warning, such as a telltale, should exist as an
initial warning, and a combination of audible and visual warnings could
exist as a ``second-level'' warning. Another commenter stated that
visual displays are efficient at conveying information that is complex,
that deals with locations in space, or that does not require immediate
action. The comment stated that, while audio-visual warnings are more
effective than visual-only warnings, visual displays are less intrusive
and perceived as less annoying than audible warnings, so that a visual-
only warning would minimize the impact of false warnings that could
negatively impact consumer acceptance. The commenter also stated that,
while visual displays alone have not been found to be effective for
motivating occupants to use a seat belt, the driver may use this
information to encourage unbuckled rear occupants to use a seat belt.
Several commenters favored requiring an audio-visual warning at the
start of the trip. Four commenters supported the specification of the
most effective warnings and noted that audio-visual warnings are more
effective than visible warnings alone. Two commenters stated that a
visual-only warning would be easily missed by a driver who is focused
on driving safely.
Three commenters recommended requiring a ``negative'' warning with
occupant detection. A commenter said that such systems would reduce
false signals and annoyance. Another commenter similarly supported a
warning on startup and commented that while a positive-only warning
icon at the start of a ride would be helpful, it would not be as
valuable as a warning triggered by negative-only status as a way to
change the behavior of those occupants who are lax or reluctant to
buckle up.
Agency Response
This rule proposes to require a visual warning (without an audible
component) upon vehicle start-up. NHTSA decided to propose the three
compliance options identified in the ANPRM for the type of information
the warning must convey. Each proposed system has strengths and
limitations. The positive-only system would be the least technically
complex of the three proposed options. Since it would only need to
detect whether a seat belt is in use, it would only require a seat belt
latch sensor. 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; we tentatively believe that there are still design
and technological challenges associated with implementing occupant
detection technology in rear seats (this is discussed in more detail in
Section XIII, Regulatory Alternatives).
The negative-only and full-status systems would provide the driver
with more information, and thus might be more effective than the
positive-only system for at least two reasons. First, 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. Second, as discussed in more detail
below, warning systems equipped with occupant
[[Page 61691]]
detection are more amenable to audible warnings and enhanced warning
features. However, we tentatively believe that systems such as these
that provide a negative warning--that is, a warning for an unfastened
belt--are only appropriate for systems utilizing occupant detection.
This is because we tentatively believe that it is not appropriate to
provide a warning for an unfastened seat belt at an unoccupied seat
because such ``false positives'' could be a nuisance for the driver and
might either desensitize the driver to the warning signal or lead them
to circumvent or defeat the system--especially since the majority of
trips do not have rear seat occupants. The proposal would therefore
permit a warning for an unfastened belt only if the seating position
were equipped with occupant detection. Accordingly, it would not, for
example, permit a system without occupant detection that displayed the
status of all the rear seat belts to be certified as a positive-only
system coupled with a voluntary warning for unfastened seat belts.
With respect to comments in favor of requiring audio-visual
warnings, we agree that warnings with an audible component are
generally more effective. However, requiring an audio-visual warning
would necessitate requiring occupant detection because the resulting
``false positives''--having an audible warning activate for an
unfastened belt at an unoccupied seat--would annoy the driver and could
decrease the effectiveness of the warning. Thus, this NPRM does not
require an audible warning on startup. However, manufacturers would be
free to provide an audible warning on startup if they so choose,
especially if the vehicle is equipped with occupant detection in the
rear. This approach harmonizes with R16 and Euro NCAP.
We acknowledge that there are systems currently deployed in both
the United States and Europe that would not comply with the proposed
compliance options. In particular, manufacturers appear to be deploying
systems without occupant detection that provide a warning for an
unfastened belt. When the ANPRM was published, the rear seat belt
warning systems in vehicles sold in the United States used what would
be classified in this proposal as a positive-only warning system. Our
current, preliminary review, however, indicates that manufacturers are
now providing visual warnings that indicate unfastened seat belts, and
not necessarily with occupant detection. For example, the visual
warning displays on some MY2022 Honda and Porsche vehicles appear to
indicate the status of all the rear seat belts, but the owner's manual
does not indicate that the vehicle is equipped with occupant detection
in the rear seats. This information is consistent with Honda's comment
that the compliance options should allow the driver to identify which
seats are unfastened (in the case without occupant detection).
Similarly, it appears that, as suggested in the comments, European
vehicle manufacturers are deploying systems that indicate seat belts
that are fastened, seat belts that are not fastened, or the status of
all rear seat belts, both with and--importantly--without occupant
detection.\116\ For example, the MY 2021 Peugeot 3008 appears to have a
system that indicates the status of all the rear seat belts but does
not indicate in its owner's manual that it has occupant detection in
the rear seats. Both ECE R16 and Euro NCAP appear to permit a broad
range of systems, including those providing warnings for unfastened
belts at unoccupied seats. R16 requires that the visual warning
``indicate at least all rear seating positions to allow the driver to
identify, while facing forward as seated on the driver seat, any
seating position in which the safety-belt is unfastened.'' Euro NCAP
similarly requires systems without occupant detection to provide a
visual warning showing both the belts in use and not in use.
Nevertheless, we tentatively believe that the proposed deviation from
R16 and some current United States and European systems is warranted
because we tentatively believe it is not appropriate to provide a
warning for an unfastened belt at an unoccupied seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Approximately 70% of Euro NCAP-tested vehicles had
occupant detection in the rear seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the three proposed compliance options are not identical to
the R16 and Euro NCAP requirements, we believe that a system that
complies with the proposed requirements could also comply with R16 and
Euro NCAP. With respect to R16, each of the three proposed compliance
options would ``allow the driver to identify, while facing forward as
seated on the driver seat, any seating position in which the safety-
belt is unfastened.'' While the reference to an ``unfastened'' belt
might be read to preclude a positive-only system--that is, it might be
read to mean that the system must explicitly inform the driver of an
unfastened belt, such as would be the case in the systems we are
calling ``negative-only'' or ``full-status''--after reviewing the types
of systems available in the European market we believe this is not the
case. Similarly, the negative-only and full-status compliance options
appear consistent with Euro NCAP because they would provide a warning
for an unfastened seat belt at an occupied seat.\117\ However, the
positive-only compliance option does not appear to be consistent with
Euro NCAP because Euro NCAP requires that systems without occupant
detection show the rear seat belts in use and not in use, and the
positive-only compliance option would not permit a visual signal for an
unfastened seat belt.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Section 3.4.3.1.3.
\118\ See Euro NCAP section 3.4.3.1.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA seeks comment on all of these issues. While we have
tentatively concluded that the proposed compliance options would help
mitigate false warnings and the possibly attendant consumer acceptance
issues, we are considering altering the proposed compliance options to
accommodate systems that are currently being deployed, or that
manufacturers may wish to deploy in the future. For example, we are
considering allowing visual warnings that indicate which seat belts are
unfastened without occupant detection. We therefore seek comment on
what visual warnings vehicle manufacturers are using in the United
States and Europe and whether they employ occupant detection. We also
seek comment on why vehicle manufacturers have decided to use visual
warnings that indicate unfastened seat belts without the use of
occupant detection and whether they have received complaints from
consumers about false warnings, or requests to deactivate the system.
Is there any consumer acceptance data to support or oppose allowing
visual warnings that indicate unfastened seat belts without the use of
occupant detection in the rear seats? We also seek comment on whether
there are any other aspects of the proposed compliance options with
which current or anticipated future systems would not comply. Is there
a preferable set of options that is sufficiently objective to satisfy
the Safety Act? NHTSA also seeks comment on how manufacturers interpret
the R16 requirements, to the extent that the agency's characterization
of them is contrary to industry understanding or practice. NHTSA also
seeks comment on whether the proposed regulatory text is sufficiently
objective and unambiguous.
b. Triggering Conditions
In the ANPRM we indicated that requiring the warning at the
beginning of each journey or trip the vehicle makes is intuitively
appealing because it
[[Page 61692]]
would help assure that occupants are safely restrained prior to any
potential vehicle crash. However, we sought comment on the possible
advantages of delaying the warning to a time when the driver or
occupants are less distracted and therefore might pay more attention to
the warning.
R16 requires that the visual warning activate when a belt is not
fastened and the ignition or master control switch activated.\119\ Euro
NCAP similarly requires that the warning start at the commencement of a
journey when the ignition switch is engaged (whether or not the engine
is running) and any of the rear belts are not fastened.\120\ However,
Euro NCAP allows for short breaks in the journey (up to 30 seconds) to
account for events such as engine stalling where the reminder is not
required to start again.\121\ For both R16 and Euro NCAP, for vehicles
that have occupant detection in the rear seats, the visual warning does
not need to indicate unfastened seat belts for unoccupied seating
positions.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Section 8.4.2.3.1.
\120\ Section 3.4.1; Section 3.4.3.1.1.
\121\ Section 3.4.1.
\122\ Section 8.4.4.2 (R16; section 3.4.3.1.1 (Euro NCAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Many ANPRM commenters either specifically recommended harmonizing
with R16 or recommended triggers that harmonized with R16. Three
commenters specifically recommended harmonizing with R16. Many other
commenters recommended that the trigger be based on the ignition
switch. One commenter explained that this would provide flexibility for
novel approaches for classifying vehicle motion. A few commenters
stated that it was necessary for the warning to activate before the
vehicle was in motion; for example, it was noted that vehicle crashes
can happen quickly (e.g., backing out of a parking spot), so vehicle
occupants should be buckled up anytime the vehicle is in motion. A
commenter also stated that delaying the warning until the vehicle is in
drive mode could leave drivers unable to ensure all passenger belts are
fastened. Delaying the warning might warrant additional study, but if
the study suggests changing the warning timing, it should do so for all
vehicle occupants. A commenter stated that any triggering condition
other than initiation at the beginning of a trip when the ignition
switch is moved to the ``on'' or ``start'' position would necessitate
occupant detection.
However, a few commenters suggested alternative approaches. One
commenter recommended against requiring a warning before a driver
shifts a vehicle into drive because a transmission-less electric
vehicle can quickly shift to drive. Requiring the warning before the
vehicle is shifted to drive would potentially amount to a seat belt
drive interlock and potentially delay shifting into drive. The
commenter believed this is unnecessary, could result in driver
frustrations that diminish acceptance, and lead to hasty detection that
increases the potential for error. Another commenter stated that the
warning would be most effective if it were triggered when the seat is
occupied, the belt is unfastened, and the vehicle's power is on. Yet
another commenter stated that the triggering condition should be
vehicle unlocking and for a period following relocking. Finally a
commenter stated that the warning should be deactivated or disallowed
if all occupants are properly buckled.
Agency Response
NHTSA proposes that the warning begin when the vehicle's ignition
switch is moved to the ``on'' or ``start'' position. This same
condition appears in the existing driver seat belt warning requirements
and is similar to ECE R16 and Euro NCAP. We are not proposing to follow
R16 and refer to a ``master control switch'' because we do not believe
it is necessary to introduce this new term into FMVSS No. 208 for the
proposed amendments to the standard. Also similar to those protocols,
if the system has occupant detection, no warning is required for
unoccupied seats under the full-status and negative-only compliance
options. As a commenter suggests, this would likely lead to more
effective warnings because it mitigates false warnings and eases the
burden on the driver to reconcile what the warning depicts with the
actual status of the rear seat passengers. We believe basing the
trigger on the ignition switch is preferable to delaying the warning
until the vehicle is placed in gear because the proposed requirement
would make it more likely that the occupants fasten their belts before
the vehicle is in motion.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ See DOT 2009 Seat Belt Study at 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the commenter on transmission-less electric
vehicles quickly shifting to drive, the warning is triggered by the
ignition, not the transmission gear position and would not impede the
driver from shifting to drive. NHTSA also disagrees with the commenter
that the system would be triggered by the vehicle being unlocked. This
could require a warning before any occupants had entered the vehicle,
and thus would likely not serve its purpose of warning the driver and
occupants given the limited duration of the warning. Such a requirement
would also not harmonize with the existing driver belt warning system
and the ECE R16 and Euro NCAP requirements.
For the negative-only system, we propose to require a visual
warning indicating which occupied seats have an unfastened seat belt
for the required duration or until the belts at all occupied rear
seating positions are in use. Therefore, like the R16 requirement, if
all occupied seats have fastened seat belts no visual warning would be
required.
c. Seat Occupancy Criteria and Interaction With Child Restraint Systems
The negative-only and full-status compliance options would require
the warning system to determine whether a seat position is occupied.
Because the existing seat belt warning requirements in FMVSS No. 208,
S7.3 apply only to the driver seat, they do not contemplate an occupant
detection system (because driver seat occupancy could traditionally be
assumed).
There are three main detection scenarios an occupant detection
system would be exposed to in the rear seats: adults, teenagers, and
older children of various heights and weights; children seated in a
child restraint system (CRS); and objects such as packages, pets, or
unoccupied CRSs. This section will discuss how the occupant detection
capability for negative-only and full-status systems should perform for
these different scenarios and our proposed weight and height criteria
for compliance testing of rear seat belt warning systems certified to
either the negative-only or full-status compliance options.
The ANPRM identified a need to objectively specify when a seat is
occupied for the purposes of testing negative-only and full-status rear
seat belt warning systems for compliance. The ANPRM requested comment
on several options for seat occupancy criteria based on those specified
in FMVSS No. 208 for compliance testing of low-risk deployment and
suppression air bag systems in the presence of children or small-
stature adults. These fall into three main categories. First, FMVSS No.
208 specifies 1-, 3-, and 6-year-old child anthropomorphic test devices
(test dummies) (weighing, respectively, 22 lb [10 kg], 36 lb [16.3 kg],
and 52 lb [23.6 kg]). Second, it
[[Page 61693]]
specifies a 5th percentile female test dummy (weighing 108 lb [50 kg]).
Third, it specifies height and weight requirements for a child used as
an alternative for the 6-year-old child test dummy for compliance
testing of advanced air bag systems utilizing static suppression
(weighing between 46.5 lb and 56.5 lb [21 kg and 25.6 kg] and between
45 in and 49 in [114 cm and 124.5 cm] tall).\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ FMVSS No. 208 S29.1(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECE R16 specifies three alternative methods for testing rear seats
with occupant detection: placing a load of 40 kg (88 lb) on the seat;
placing an object or human representing a 5th percentile adult female
(the HIII-5F specified in 49 CFR part 572, as adjusted for the ECE
test); or an alternative method specified by the vehicle
manufacturer.\125\ Euro NCAP defines occupancy as the use by an
occupant larger, taller, or heavier than a 5th percentile female.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ Annex 18.
\126\ Section 3.4.1.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ANPRM also sought comment on whether a rear seat belt warning
would reliably detect a child restraint system attached by a child
restraint anchorage system, or LATCH. The intent of this question was
to determine whether a seat belt warning system might register a false
alarm for a LATCH-installed CRS. Neither R16 nor Euro NCAP have
requirements with respect to the system's interaction with LATCH-
installed CRSs.
Comments
We received a number of comments related to seat occupancy criteria
and the detection capabilities the system should have.
With respect to seat occupancy criteria, several commenters
supported harmonizing with ECE R16 and/or basing the criteria on a 5th
female dummy (88 lb-105 lb). Several commenters suggested harmonizing
with the ECE R16 criteria. A commenter stated that the occupant size
that the system is required to detect should not be less than the
occupant size that would use the seat belt as the only restraint.
Another commenter stated that for children seated in booster seats or
high-back boosters (with belt positioning guides), the CRS often
directly utilizes the belt provided in the vehicle. In these cases, a
rear belt reminder system may be useful for reminding the driver to
ensure the child seated in that seating position is either restrained
or providing an alert that the restraint status has changed during a
trip (i.e., belt became unbuckled). A commenter recommended specifying
the 5th percent female detection criteria for several reasons: starting
with the 5th female would cover a large share of the target population;
belt usage is high for children as long as they are in a CRS (so a
warning system appears less needed); the 5th percent female includes a
large share of the teenage population; it would harmonize with FMVSS
No. 208 and international NCAP programs; and it would result in more
robust systems with respect to false positives.
On the other hand, various commenters recommended that the
occupancy criteria be based on children that might reasonably be
expected to use seat belts. Two commenters suggested that the occupancy
criteria be based on the smallest weight of a child that can reasonably
be expected to be restrained by a seat belt rather than a CRS. One of
the commenters stated that a weight of 20 lb (9 kg) is consistent with
all state laws for CRS use. Another commenter stated that the criteria
should reflect a minimum weight equal to that of a Hybrid III 6-year
old child (about 52 lb). However, as noted below, commenters believed
that using weight alone was not enough. A commenter did not agree with
criteria based on a 6-year-old, and instead suggested the HIII 3-year-
old dummy (36 pounds, or 16 kg) as the minimum weight threshold,
stating that this dummy's weight roughly represents the 95th percentile
2-year-old and the 5th percentile 5-year-old. The commenter stated a 6-
year-old was not appropriate as nearly 60% of 4- and 5-year-old
children do not ride in a CRS with a harness, so many of the most
vulnerable seat belt users (very young children using the belt alone or
in conjunction with a booster) would fail to trigger the alarm if
unbuckled. A commenter stated that the specifications should represent
the occupant population at risk from non-use of rear seat belts, and
stated that NHTSA's 2017 passenger vehicle fatality data indicates that
restraint non-use exceeds the national average (47%) in the population
of occupants starting at age 8-12; the unrestrained percentage for
younger occupants is 36% for 4-7-year-olds and 22% for occupants less
than 4 years old. A commenter suggested that the criteria should
register children that would presumably be placed in a child restraint
system (i.e., children as young as 4 years old). Another commenter
recommended that NHTSA's testing reflect the full range of body types
as well as child restraint systems that could be present in rear seats.
We also received a variety of comments about the detection
capabilities the system should have. Several commenters argued that the
system should be required to detect CRSs. Three commenters supported
requiring LATCH detection. Two of those commenters stated that the
reminder system should be able to recognize when a car safety seat is
installed with LATCH instead of the seat belt and should not activate
under those conditions in order to avoid nuisance (false) warnings. A
commenter said that when a CRS is installed using the lower anchors of
the LATCH system, the seat belt is typically not in use, so a non-
discerning sensor would conclude that an unbuckled occupant is present
(because a CRS is heavy enough to be classified as an occupant by an
occupant detection system).\127\ A commenter recommended that the
occupant detection system provide a warning if the CRS is improperly
latched.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ Safe Ride News also appeared to suggest that in
conjunction or in the alternative, the system should be able to be
deactivated or allow the driver to dismiss (acknowledge) the
warning. NHTSA's tentative conclusion to not adopt these approaches
is explained in Section X.E, Resistance to intentional and
inadvertent defeat and deactivation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, several commenters believed that the system
should not be required to detect a CRS. Three commenters stated that
the system should not be required to detect a CRS, with two of the
commenters noting variation in CRS designs and the fact that neither
ECE R16 nor Euro NCAP require CRS detection capabilities. These three
commenters opposed requiring LATCH detection because it would provide
little benefit with significant added costs. One of the commenters
added that LATCH systems are not typically latched/unlatched
frequently, so it is far more uncommon to be in the unlatched state.
Additionally, as only the latch could potentially be detected, and yet
the remaining parts of the child restraint are unmonitored, it may give
a false assurance to the user that the child is fully restrained. Two
of the commenters said that if this were required, the system would
need to distinguish different types of CRS available in the market,
which would be difficult to implement. A commenter that opposed
requiring occupant detection on buses, commented that buses with LATCH
seats would require a detection system capable of differentiating
whether an occupant is unbuckled or secured using the LATCH
attachments; whether an occupant is unbuckled or secured using the
securement harness provided with the seat; and between removed seats
and those with incorrect electrical connections. Another commenter
stated that CRSs pose a challenge to occupant
[[Page 61694]]
detection systems, which would need to account for all of the different
uses of the rear seat; a false-positive warning on a child properly
restrained using the LATCH system (who would not be buckled in with the
seat belt) could discourage the consumer from using LATCH.
Finally, some commenters advocated requiring more sophisticated
detection capabilities in order to limit false positives. Two of these
commenters suggested that the system should be able to discern the
difference between an occupant and objects such as packages. Another
commenter said that NHTSA should also limit false activations when
seats are occupied by child seats or other items. A commenter stated
that NHTSA should allow for a child seat mode that suppresses the
warning.
Agency Response
As an initial matter, it is important to understand the different
types of CRSs, how seat belts are used with them, and the size/age of
the children for which each type of CRS is typically appropriate.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all United
States territories have laws requiring children to be secured in the
appropriate car seats or booster seats for their ages and sizes
while riding in vehicles. Most states now require children to ride
in appropriate car seats or booster seats until as old as age eight
(Alaska covers children up to 15 years old as long as they fall
within their specified height and weight criteria).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are essentially three types of CRSs: rear-facing CRSs,
forward-facing CRSs, and booster seats.\129\ Rear-facing and forward-
facing CRSs are child seats that are installed using either LATCH \130\
or a seat belt to secure it in place.\131\ Booster seats raise and
position a child so the vehicle's lap-and-shoulder belt fits properly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ Within these types are CRS designs that can be used for
multiple purposes, such as convertible CRSs that can be used as a
rear-facing and forward-facing CRS and combination CRSs that can be
used as a forward-facing CRS and booster seat.
\130\ 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.
\131\ Some boosters can also be secured to the seat with LATCH
so that it stays in place when in use and not in use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA recommends that children remain in a rear-facing CRS until
they reach the top height or weight limit allowed by the CRS
manufacturer.\132\ NHTSA also recommends that children remain in a
forward-facing car seat with a harness and tether until they reach the
top height or weight limit allowed by the car seat's manufacturer. Most
forward-facing CRS are rated for children up to 49 in (124 cm) and 65
lb (29 kg).\133\ Once a child outgrows the forward-facing car seat with
a harness, the child can travel in a booster seat and use a seat belt.
NHTSA identifies an age range of 4-7 years old for when this transition
to a booster typically occurs, depending on the height and weight of
the child and the respective limits of their forward-facing car seat.
Once a child outgrows the booster seat they can sit directly in the
seat and use the seat belt alone; NHTSA identifies an age range of
eight to thirteen and older for when this typically occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ For the NHTSA recommendations discussed here, see https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats (last accessed
Apr. 7, 2022).
\133\ See https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/on-the-go/Pages/Car-Safety-Seats-Product-Listing.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the remainder of this section we discuss, first, the proposed
weight and height criteria NHTSA proposes to use in compliance testing
of rear seat belt warning systems certified to the negative-only or
full-status compliance options and, second, what ability (if any) such
systems should have to detect a CRS.
Weight and Height Criteria
NHTSA believes the rear seat belt warning system should be able to
detect an occupant that should be restrained with a seat belt alone and
provide seat belt use information to the driver that is appropriate for
that type of system. This target population is comprised of adults,
teenagers, and children in booster seats. Children in booster seats are
part of the target population because they should be restrained with
the seat belt and so would benefit from a seat belt reminder. As
mentioned above, the transition to a booster seat typically occurs from
ages 4-7 years. Children in rear-facing and forward-facing CRSs are not
part of the target population because these children are restrained by
the CRS harness, not the seat belt. The intent of the reminder is not
to warn of CRS misuse, but to warn of occupants not restrained by a
belt alone.
Accordingly, we are proposing that a rear designated seating
position would be considered ``occupied'' when an occupant who weighs
at least 46.5 lb (21 kg), and is at least 45 in (114 cm) tall, is
seated there. These criteria are proxies for a six-year-old child,
which roughly corresponds to a typical age at which a child would
transition from a forward-facing CRS to a booster seat. We have taken
these criteria from FMVSS No. 208, which uses them to specify the
smallest child that may be used as an alternative to the 6-year-old
dummy in static suppression tests under FMVSS No. 208. The proposed
test does not specify the use of a booster seat because we are aware
that children can be prematurely transitioned to a seat belt without
the use of a booster,\134\ and we believe it is desirable to test the
lower end of the possible weight range that encompasses children that
could conceivably be restrained with a seat belt alone. As we explain
below in Section XII.B, Test Procedures, the agency proposes using
either a person or any anthropomorphic test device specified in part
572 that meets these proposed weight and height criteria.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ About 16.6 percent of children 4 to 7 years old were
prematurely transitioned to seat belts in the ``2019 National Survey
of the Use of Booster Seats'' (DOT HS 813 033).
\135\ For anthropomorphic test devices, this would include the
50th percentile male, 5th percentile female, and the 6-year-old and
10-year-old child dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These criteria specify a smaller occupant than does R16. We
tentatively believe that harmonizing with R16 and using a heavier dummy
would not capture the child segment of the population that is in
booster seats; that is, seat belt use may occur for occupants smaller
than the criteria specified by R16. We also do not believe it is
necessary to use a larger-size occupant because a system capable of
recognizing a six-year-old should also be capable of recognizing larger
occupants.
At the same time, we tentatively believe that the proposed criteria
are preferable to criteria reflecting a younger occupant (lower
weight). The smallest dummy that would meet the proposed weight and
height criteria is the 6-year-old dummy specified in part 572. The next
smallest dummy represents a 3-year-old child (i.e., the Hybrid III
three-year-old), but we believe it would not be appropriate to specify
the use of the 3-year-old because a child represented by this ATD
should be seated in a forward- or rear-facing CRS, not a booster seat.
Ability of the System To Detect a CRS
NHTSA also does not propose to require any sort of CRS detection
capabilities at this time.
We tentatively believe that a forward- or rear-facing CRS installed
with the seat belt would not cause problematic false warnings; rather
it would just register the CRS as a buckled passenger.
Similarly, we believe that a forward- or rear-facing CRS installed
with LATCH would not pose issues necessitating any specific
requirements related to the LATCH system, such as LATCH sensors. There
are a few reasons for this. First, we do not believe
[[Page 61695]]
LATCH-installed CRSs would lead to false warnings or driver confusion
about the belt status of any rear occupants, because NHTSA recommends
buckling unused seat belts that are within reach of children to prevent
seat belt entanglement and/or strangulation.\136\ This includes, for
forward- or rear-facing CRSs installed with LATCH, buckling the unused
belt behind the CRS. (Fastening the unused seat belt behind the CRS
when installing a CRS with LATCH should not be mistaken for installing
a CRS with both the seat belt and LATCH; a CRS installed with LATCH is
not also installed with the seat belt unless it is approved by both the
car seat and vehicle manufacturers.) If users follow NHTSA's
recommendation and buckle the belt behind the CRS, the positive-only
system would simply consider those belts to be fastened, and the
negative- and full-status systems would not register a false warning.
If the belt is not buckled as NHTSA recommends, with a positive-only
system, the driver would simply see that there were no buckled belts,
so there would be no false warnings. For the negative-only and full-
status systems (which utilize occupant detection), the system could
register the child in the CRS as an occupant depending on the weight of
the child and CRS. We are aware of at least one vehicle manufacturer
that uses occupant detection for its rear seat belt warnings and it
recommends fastening the unused seat belt if the CRS is installed with
LATCH to avoid such a false warning. (In the owner's manual section of
this preamble we seek comment on including such guidance in the owner's
manual, which includes information provided by the vehicle manufacturer
to the consumer, whether in digital or printed form.) Again, if the
belt is not buckled as NHTSA recommends, the driver would need to take
these facts into account when comparing the number of rear seat
occupants against how many or which rear seat belts are reported to be
in use by the warning system. Second, we are not proposing to require a
warning for CRSs improperly attached to the LATCH because the focus of
this rulemaking is on providing a seat belt warning, not on providing
warnings for improperly installed LATCH child seats. Third, this
approach is consistent with ECE R16 and Euro NCAP, neither of which
have provisions for addressing LATCH-installed child restraints.
Finally, requiring LATCH sensors would add extra complexity and cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/child-safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also do not believe a booster seat would present any special
challenges to a seat belt warning system. If an (un)belted child is in
a booster seat, the system would register the belt as not (un)fastened
and (if equipped with occupant detection) that the seat was occupied.
This would not necessitate the system to specifically detect the
booster seat because the performance criteria are weight-based. In
addition, we would not expect an occupant detection system to provide a
false warning for an unoccupied booster seat because the proposed seat
occupancy criteria (roughly equivalent to a 6-year-old) is heavier than
an unoccupied booster seat.
We are also not proposing to require more sophisticated features to
test how well the system avoids false positives--e.g., the ability of
the system to distinguish packages or pets from occupants or a child
seat mode. A detection system that can differentiate between cargo and
occupants would require additional sensor technology in comparison to a
weight-based sensor and would be more costly. This issue can be
mitigated by moving the cargo to the floor or trunk of the vehicle or
by buckling the unused belt and would not be an issue for the positive-
only compliance option. Tesla's ``child seat mode'' allows the driver
to acknowledge the warning triggered by a CRS installed with LATCH for
that trip. With respect to Tesla's comment regarding a child seat mode,
neither ECE R16 nor Euro NCAP contemplate this and we are not aware of
other manufacturers that have employed this feature. Given that a child
seat mode feature could be used to circumvent the warning (i.e., a belt
use warning could be prevented or dismissed by use of the child seat
mode), and the limited information NHTSA has on it, we have tentatively
decided not to permit this feature.
We seek comment on all these issues.
d. Minimum Duration
The ANPRM also sought comment on the minimum duration of the
warning. NHTSA's front seat belt warning research suggests that longer-
duration warnings are more effective, but also more annoying.\137\ The
current driver's seat belt visual warning in FMVSS No. 208 is required
to last at least 60 seconds under the second compliance option in FMVSS
No. 208, S7.3(a)(2). Both R16 and Euro NCAP specify a 60-second visual
warning (which may end sooner if the belt is fastened or the seat
becomes unoccupied).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, supra n. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Many commenters recommended harmonizing with R16 and adopting 60
seconds.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Global suggested not adopting the Euro NCAP duration
requirement (90 seconds) because the warning must balance
effectiveness and consumer acceptance, but NHTSA understands the
Euro NCAP minimum duration to be 60 seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few commenters advocated a longer warning. Two commenters
recommended the warning should last until all occupants are buckled.
One commenter said that systems with long single-cycle durations and
those that cycle audible/visual reminders throughout the entirety of
the drive are more effective than systems that cycle for a limited
number of times.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ NSC cited an IIHS study finding that an indefinite
reminder and a 100 second constant reminder increased seat belt use
by 30-34 percent over an intermittent reminder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter said that the visual warning duration should be
based on evidence of effectiveness while maintaining a balance with
annoyance.
Agency Response
NHTSA is proposing that the warning last for at least 60 seconds.
We believe that 60 seconds is sufficient to capture the driver's
attention, and that a longer warning would have the potential to become
distracting or a nuisance.\140\ This would be a shorter warning than we
are proposing for the front outboard seats (see Section XI.C). There
are a couple of reasons for our tentative decision that a shorter
warning is warranted for the rear seats. First, we are not proposing to
require occupant detection for the rear seat belt warning system; the
positive-only compliance option would require that the driver be
informed of which rear seat belts are fastened. This type of
``warning'' functions more to provide information to the driver, rather
than a true warning (because it will be providing information to the
driver even if all rear occupants have fastened their seat belts), so
we tentatively think that it is not necessary to require that this be
particularly long-lasting. Second, and related, even for the compliance
options that would entail occupant detection, the complexities of
occupant detection in the rear seats and the possibilities for false
positives provide another reason for not requiring an extremely long-
lasting warning. Manufacturers would be free to provide a longer
warning if they wished. The proposed compliance
[[Page 61696]]
options requiring occupant detection would not require a warning for
occupants with fastened belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ We are also proposing that these visual displays should
not be overridden by other visual warnings for the required
duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is consistent with ECE R16 and Euro NCAP and with systems
currently deployed in the United States. Our preliminary analysis found
that, of the 15 manufacturers that provide vehicle models with a rear
seat belt warning system in the United States, 8 appear to provide
systems with initial visual warnings that are active for at least 60
seconds. An additional three manufacturers appear to provide visual
warnings until the seat belt is fastened.
2. Audio-Visual Change-of-Status Warning
The ANPRM sought comment on requiring a change-of-status warning
for when a fastened seat belt is unfastened, including an audio-visual
change-of-status warning. We also sought comment with respect to
potential requirements for an audible warning, including the duration
of the warning and whether NHTSA should specify additional warning
characteristics (such as sound level).
R16 specifies an audio-visual change-of-status warning for the rear
seats. If a fastened rear belt becomes unfastened when the vehicle is
in ``normal operation,'' \141\ R16 specifies an audio-visual warning
(second level) when certain distance, time and/or speed threshold(s)
(at the choice of the manufacturer) are exceeded.\142\ The additional
thresholds are distance traveled (not to exceed 500 meters), vehicle
speed (not to exceed 25 km/h, and/or travel time (not to exceed 60
sec). This warning must last for at least 30 seconds unless the
unfastened belt becomes fastened, the seat associated with the
unfastened belt is no longer occupied, or the vehicle is no longer in
normal operation.\143\ This warning may not be canceled by the driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ Defined as forward motion at a speed greater than 10 km/h.
Sec. 2.47.
\142\ Section 8.4.4.5.
\143\ These summaries simplify the requirements somewhat. They
will be discussed in greater detail later in the preamble where
relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Euro NCAP also requires (in order to earn bonus points) an audio-
visual change-of-status warning at vehicle speeds of 25 km/h and
above.\144\ 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
forward motion for 500 meters or has reached a forward speed of 25 km/
h.\145\ A warning is not required if the system has occupant detection
as long as all doors remain closed and the number of buckled positions
remains the same, in order to minimize the number of false positives
(e.g., children remaining in the vehicle but swapping seats in the rear
while at a traffic light).\146\ The warning duration differs for the
visual and audible warnings. With respect to the visual warning, if the
system does not have occupant detection, the warning must last until
the seat belt is fastened or 60 seconds have elapsed.\147\ If the
system does have occupant detection, the signal must remain on until
the belt is fastened. The audible warning must last until the belt is
fastened,\148\ 30 seconds have elapsed,\149\ or the vehicle speed falls
below 10 km/h.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ Section 3.4.1.5.
\145\ Section 3.4.1.5.
\146\ Section 3.4.1.5.
\147\ Section 3.4.3.1.1.
\148\ Section 3.4.1.6.
\149\ Section 3.4.3.2.
\150\ Section 3.4.1.6. The audio signal must resume when the
speed goes above 25 km/h and no doors have been opened and the seat
belt(s) remain unbuckled. In addition, the audible signal may
instead meet the requirements for the front seating positions, if
the vehicle is equipped with occupant detection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Many commenters specifically supported requiring an audio-visual
change-of-status warning. One commenter cited a survey of adult
passengers who do not routinely use a seat belt in the rear in which
62% of respondents said they would be more likely to use a seat belt if
there was an audible warning compared with only 50% who said the same
about a visual warning.
With respect to the triggers for the warning, two commenters stated
that a change-of-status warning should activate regardless of the
speed.
Several comments also discussed the duration of an audible alert.
Several commenters recommended harmonizing with the 30 seconds required
by R16. Other commenters argued for a longer audible warning,
including: 60 seconds, 90 seconds, and until all occupants are buckled.
One comment noted that audio-visual warnings that continue to cycle
throughout the drive are more effective than limited-duration warnings.
Another commenter recommended consistency with existing FMVSS No. 208
audible warning systems for front occupants. Commenters stated that the
duration should be based on evidence of effectiveness while maintaining
a balance with annoyance. A commenter stated that, while information
about the effect of an audio-visual rear seat belt warning on rear seat
belt use is sparse, research on front seat belt warning systems
suggests that an audio-visual warning lasting longer than 8 seconds
would be expected to motivate an unbelted rear occupant to refasten the
seat belt.
With respect to other warning characteristics, three commenters
recommended that the audible warning be heard throughout the vehicle. A
commenter suggested following R16's requirement that the warning
``consist of a continuous or an intermittent (pauses shall not exceed 1
second) sound signal or of continuous vocal information.'' \151\ Two
commenters said that specifying additional audible warning
characteristics would be burdensome and unnecessary. A commenter said
that there should be a balance of the sound level so that consumers
would accept and react positively to the warning, and suggested it be
the same as that for the driver. Another commenter recommended that the
audible warning specification be based on evidence of effectiveness and
suggested that maintaining consistency with other seat belt warning
signals would be desirable. A commenter recommended consistency with
existing FMVSS No. 208 audible warning systems for front occupants. And
yet another commenter recommended a warning that is enhanced but does
not rattle the driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ Section 8.4.2.2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
The agency proposes to require an audio-visual warning when a rear
seat belt is unbuckled during a trip. We propose that when the
vehicle's ignition switch is in the ``on'' or ``start'' position, the
vehicle's transmission selector is in a forward or reverse gear, and a
rear seat belt in use changes to not being in use, the vehicle must
activate a continuous or flashing visual warning consisting of icons
\152\ or text visible to the driver, as well as a continuous or
intermittent audible signal for a period of not less than 30 seconds,
beginning when a seat belt in use changes to not being in use. The
warnings could cut off sooner if the belt is refastened before the
minimum time limit has been reached. Comments from vehicle
manufacturers were largely in support of harmonizing with the ECE R16
requirements, and the proposed requirements are comparable to the
change-of-status warnings on vehicles currently equipped with rear seat
belt warnings. For example, Volvo vehicles provide an audio-visual
warning lasting until the belt is refastened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ In the proposed regulatory text, we use the term
``symbol'' instead of ``icon'' in order to be consistent with the
current usage in FMVSS Nos. 101 and 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe this warning will be an effective way to reduce the risk
of injury
[[Page 61697]]
to rear seat occupants by alerting the driver when a passenger
unbuckles during a trip. NHTSA's 2015 consumer survey found that a
change-of-status warning is effective in getting passengers to refasten
their seat belt.\153\ This may be an especially beneficial feature for
drivers transporting children in the back seat. 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. Fifty-five
percent of the drivers surveyed by NHTSA who transport children in the
rear seat and who said their children do not always use seat belts,
have had the experience of their child unbuckling during a trip.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ 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.]
\154\ Id. at 10. This percentage is based on a fairly small
number (15) of drivers who reported that their children do not
always use seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed requirements follow ECE R16 and Euro NCAP in that both
of those protocols include an audio-visual rear belt change-of-status
warning with specified trigger criteria.\155\ We tentatively agree with
a commenter that a duration longer than 8 seconds is warranted because
it will be more effective and believe that a 30-second minimum duration
appropriately balances effectiveness and acceptance. We note that this
is shorter than the duration we are proposing for the change-of-status
warning for the front outboard seats (until the belt is re-fastened--
see Section XI.C.2) because we tentatively believe that a longer
warning for the rear seats is more likely to lead to driver
distraction, especially with children in the rear seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ Features of the change-of-status warning that are common
with the start of trip warning--for example, the telltale
characteristics--are discussed later in the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal differs from R16 and Euro NCAP in a few ways:
Triggers. The warning would be required as long as the
ignition is on and the transmission selector is in the drive or reverse
position, with no additional thresholds or triggers, such as the
vehicle having to reach a forward speed of 25 km/h. We tentatively
believe this departure from R16 and Euro NCAP is justified. Seat belts
provide a safety benefit even at lower speeds, and regardless of the
direction of motion. We also believe a warning would be beneficial even
if the vehicle is not moving. A driver may want to know if any rear
seat occupants--especially children--have been unbuckled while the
vehicle is temporarily stopped (e.g., at a traffic light) or slowed
(e.g., in a parking lot), because the vehicle could soon be resuming
travel. In addition, providing a warning when the vehicle is stationary
would allow the driver to attend to the unbuckled passengers before
having to focus attention on the driving task. We similarly believe
that a warning would be useful before the vehicle has reached any
distance or trip time threshold. We do not adopt the Euro NCAP
allowance for not requiring a change-of-status warning when all doors
remain closed and the number of buckled positions remains the same
because this would require a delay in the activation of the change-of-
status warning; also, these types of events are likely limited and
require very little time so exposure to the warning would be very
limited. We do, however, adopt the Euro NCAP requirement that if a
change-of-status occurs and a door is open, the system should consider
that as the start of a new trip. This would allow for passengers to
exit the vehicle when the driver does not shift into the park gear
without activating the change-of-status warning for the full duration
requirement.
Duration. The proposed 30-second duration harmonizes with
ECE R16 (though it is shorter than the 60-second duration for the
visual signal specified in Euro NCAP, but consistent with the 30-second
duration for the audible signal). We propose that the audible signal
may be ``intermittent'' (i.e., not continuous), which mirrors the
longstanding requirements for the driver's seat belt warning. ECE R16
\156\ and Euro NCAP \157\ do not count periods in which the warning
stops for longer than 3 seconds as part of the overall duration, and we
have tentatively decided to propose a similar requirement for the rear
audible change-of-status warning. (In contrast, we are specifying
additional signal characteristics for the front seat belt change-of-
status warning because we are proposing to require a longer duration
for that warning. This is discussed in Section XI.C.2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ Section 8.4.2.4.1.
\157\ Section 3.4.3.2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audible warning characteristics. ECE R16 specifies that
for intermittent audible warnings, the pauses shall not exceed 1
second, and that gaps longer than 3 seconds would not count toward the
required 30 second duration. Euro NCAP specifies that there must be no
gaps greater than 10 seconds, and that gaps longer than 3 seconds would
also not count toward their required duration. We have tentatively
decided to propose a requirement that specifies that periods of time
when the audible warning is not active for longer than 3 seconds would
not count toward the required 30 second duration. Given the very
limited duration of the rear seat change-of-status audible warning for
the rear seats we believe this is a sufficient constraint for achieving
an adequate warning. We have not further specified audible warning
characteristics, such as volume or tone, in order to provide
manufacturers design flexibility. The standard has required an audible
driver's seat belt warning with no additional audible warning
requirements since the early 1970s, so we believe manufacturers are
familiar with designing and implementing optimal audible seat belt
warnings. As mentioned above, we are specifying additional signal
characteristics for the front seat belt change-of-status warning
because we are proposing to require an indefinite duration for that
warning, which requires more thought about the warning characteristics
to mitigate the use of ineffective audible warnings (See Section
XI.C.2).
We seek comment on all aspects of the proposed change-of-status
warning. 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? Are any of the deviations from R16 and/or Euro
NCAP unwarranted, and what is the basis for such a conclusion? We
acknowledge that the proposed requirements may still trigger the
change-of-status warning for a short period of time until a door is
opened when a passenger exits the vehicle and the vehicle is not in the
park gear; however, we believe exposure to a very limited warning in
these scenarios is necessary in order to capture other change-of-status
events that occur when a vehicle is stopped but not in the park gear.
We seek comment on how vehicle manufacturers are currently handling
(e.g., what type of warning if any is provided) rear seat change-of-
status events that occur when the vehicle is stopped, but not in the
park gear, or at low speeds (e.g., what type of warning, if any, is
provided when passengers exit the vehicle without the vehicle being in
the park gear)? As will be discussed later, we are proposing that the
change-of-status warning for the front outboard seats be active until
the seat belt that triggered the warning is refastened, so we seek
comment on whether the proposed limited duration change-of-status
warning for the rear seats should
[[Page 61698]]
also be required to last indefinitely until the rear seat belt is
refastened.
3. Telltale Location
A seat belt warning can function by alerting the driver that a rear
seat belt is unbuckled, leaving it to the driver to request the rear
passenger to buckle up. However, many other strategies are possible.
For example, in addition to warning the driver, the front seat
passenger could also be warned on the premise that, if the driver was
occupied by other matters, the front seat passenger could direct the
rear seat passengers to buckle up. Another strategy could be to warn
the rear passenger(s) directly that their belt is unbuckled. Finally,
in addition to warning the rear passenger(s), the driver and/or the
front passenger could be warned. Some research suggests that having the
warning visible to the unbelted occupant may increase
effectiveness.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ DOT 2007 Acceptability Study, supra n.78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECE R16 requires that the visual warning be visible to the driver
when they are facing forward,\159\ and Euro NCAP similarly requires
that the visual signal be clearly visible to the driver without the
need for the head to be moved from the normal driving position.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ Section 8.4.2.1.1.
\160\ Section 3.4.1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Most commenters recommended that the signal be visible to the
driver, while one suggested the signal be visible to the rear seat
passengers to avoid relying on the driver to enforce belt use,
especially as rear-seat occupancy increases due to the increased use of
for-hire vehicles (and, possibly at some time in the future, autonomous
vehicles).
Another commenter stated that it is impractical to provide a
warning to rear passengers on buses due to wiring costs, customization,
and FMVSS No. 222 requirements for head impact performance (for school
buses).
Agency Response
We agree with the majority of commenters and propose that the
warning signal be visible to the driver. Although some research may
suggest that having the warning visible to the unbelted occupant may
increase effectiveness, we tentatively believe that the increased cost,
complexity, and re-design such a requirement would entail would not be
justified. However, manufacturers would have the flexibility to place
the visual warning where it would be seen by some or all rear seat
occupants. In Section XII.C we discuss the implications of the telltale
location as it relates to automated vehicles.
4. Telltale Characteristics
The ANPRM sought comment on whether we should propose requirements
for telltale characteristics such as color and required text.
For the current driver's seat belt warning, FMVSS No. 208 requires
a continuous or flashing warning light displaying (at the choice of the
manufacturer) either the telltale specified in FMVSS No. 101 (see
Figure 2) or the words ``Fasten Seat Belts'' or ``Fasten Belts.'' \161\
The telltale must be visible to the driver \162\ in both daytime and
nighttime.\163\ There are no color or illumination requirements for the
telltale.\164\ The seat belt telltale may share a common space with
other telltales except several specific telltales identified in FMVSS
No. 101.\165\ Telltales in the same common space, however, may not be
displayed simultaneously.\166\ The seat belt telltale must displace any
other symbol or message in that common space while the underlying
condition for the telltale's activation exists.\167\ Supplementary
symbols or words may be used in conjunction with the required telltale
or words.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ FMVSS No. 208 S7.3(a) and FMVSS No. 101, table 2.
\162\ FMVSS No. 208 S7.3; FMVSS No. 101 S5.1.2.
\163\ FMVSS No. 101, S5.3.3(a).
\164\ See Table 2.
\165\ S5.5.2. These are: air bag malfunction, low tire pressure,
electronic stability control malfunction, passenger air bag off,
high beam, turn signal, and any brake system malfunction required by
table 1 to be red.
\166\ See FMVSS No. 101 S4 (``Common space'' is ``an area on
which more than one telltale, indicator, identifier, or other
message may be displayed, but not simultaneously'').
\167\ FMVSS No. 101, S5.5.5.
\168\ FMVSS No. 101, S5.2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2--Seat Belt Telltale From FMVSS No. 101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.001
The rear reminder requirements in ECE R16 mirror the FMVSS driver's
warning requirements in several respects: the telltale may be flashing
or steady; \169\ it must be recognizable in the daylight and at
nighttime and distinguishable from other alerts; \170\ and there are no
color requirements.\171\ However, R16 differs from the FMVSS
requirements in that there is no required telltale symbol.\172\ R16
also appears to require a visual warning that depicts all the rear
seating positions.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ Section 8.4.2.1.2.
\170\ Section 8.4.2.1.1.
\171\ Section 8.4.4.3.
\172\ Section 8.4.4.3. A common telltale may be used for both
the front and rear seat belt reminders. Section 8.4.4.4. The front
reminder is required to utilize the symbol specified in Regulation
121, which is the same symbol specified in FMVSS No. 101 and
depicted in Figure 2.
\173\ Section 8.4.4.2 (``The visual warning shall indicate at
least al rear seating positions to allow the driver to identify,
while facing forward as seated on the driver seat, any seating
position in which the safety-belt is unfastened.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Euro NCAP specifies that as soon as the audible part of the seat
belt reminder signal starts, the visual signal needs to flash and be
synchronized with the audible part.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ Section 3.4.1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Several commenters favored standardized warnings. Two commenters
stated that standardized telltales would help drivers recognize the
icons when driving different/multiple vehicles (rentals, etc.).
In contrast, other commenters urged NHTSA to provide manufacturers
with
[[Page 61699]]
flexibility and not require a specific telltale. Two commenters
specifically suggested harmonizing with ECE R16, in addition to the
many commenters who generally urged harmonization with R16. A commenter
requested flexibility to choose the indication method for each seating
position, such as a telltale or a graphic or rendering of the vehicle
seating positions in a more advanced display screen.\175\ Another
commenter urged NHTSA to defer regulatory action on the establishment
of a specific symbol and simply require that any telltale provided be
communicated in the owner's manual because additional research is
needed to determine which approaches may be most effective in
communicating reminder status for a particular row or specific
designated seating position, and emphasized its belief that NHTSA
should not mandate specific indicators or display characteristics in
order to provide OEMs with flexibility. Two commenters similarly
suggested allowing the telltales for the rear seat belt reminder to
differ (e.g., different colors, symbols) from those currently used for
the front.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ Honda's comment seems ambiguous. It urges harmonization
with R16, which does not require a specific telltale, but also
states that the existing seat belt telltale in FMVSS No. 101 is a
universally-recognized warning that can be used to provide a
consistent link to additional seat belt information, and advocates
using the FMVSS No. 101 telltale as a ``baseline warning'' to ensure
that an active safety belt warning continues to be provided if an
additional seat belt warning visual display needs to give priority
to a more important safety warning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, some commenters did not oppose requiring use of
the current driver's seat belt telltale. A commenter said that a
typical approach for rear seat belt warnings is to include a separate
area on the instrument panel for separate telltale(s) for the rear
seating position. These telltales could be specific to the actual
seating position to inform the driver of the actual position that is
buckled or unbuckled.
A commenter said that the rear seat warning system should be
coordinated with the driver warning, and that an ideal approach would
be to provide a pictogram of the vehicle that has icons showing the
seat belt status for each seating position. The commenter suggested
this dashboard image could be combined with the door-ajar image, and it
could even be enhanced to indicate whether a door's child safety lock
feature is engaged. Similarly, a commenter stated that the warning
should convey the location of each unbuckled occupant
(negative[hyphen]only system for which occupant detection would be
necessary).
Agency Response
We are proposing that the visual warning be continuous or flashing
and consist of icons or text and indicate how many or which rear seat
belts are in use or not in use depending on the type of warning system.
If icons are used to indicate how many or which rear belts are in use,
we propose that icon(s) must be green; if icons are used to indicate to
the driver how many or which belts are not in use, we propose that the
icon(s) be red. If text is used to indicate to the driver how many or
which rear seat belts are in use or not in use, we propose that the
text contain the words ``rear belt(s) in use'' or ``rear belt(s) not in
use.'' We also propose to amend table 2 in FMVSS No. 101, Controls and
displays, to clarify that the ``Seat Belt Unfastened Telltale''
depicted there does not apply to the rear seat belt reminder. We also
propose to amend able 1 in FMVSS No. 101 by adding in a row for the
proposed rear seat belt warning. We agree with the merits of
standardized warnings, but also seek to provide manufacturers
flexibility to address their vehicle designs.
The requirement that the visual warning be continuous or flashing
mirrors the current driver's seat belt visual warning requirement and
is also consistent with R16. However, we propose to depart from the
current driver's warning and from R16 and standardize the color of the
icons and text for the warnings to increase the likelihood that
consumers would notice, recognize, and respond to the warnings. We
believe that standardized colors and text will facilitate the
interpretation of the signal. We are departing from the current
driver's warning requirements and following R16 by not requiring
specific icons because we believe the choice of icons would largely
depend on whether the system displayed the number of seat belts in use
or which seat belts are in use; this NPRM provides manufacturers
flexibility in choosing which icons to use.
Another difference between the proposal and R16 is that R16
requires that the visual warning ``indicate at least all rear seating
positions.'' We understand this to mean that the visual warning must
depict all the rear seating positions. For instance, on some vehicles,
Peugeot employs a visual warning that uses a schematic of the whole
vehicle to indicate seat belt non-use or change-of-status for each
seating position.\176\ Another manufacturer, Cupra, uses a visual
warning, on some of its European vehicles, which depicts the status of
all the seat belts in the rear seats without using a schematic of the
whole vehicle.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ https://public.servicebox.peugeot.com/APddb/modeles/3008/eGuide_ed02-16/pdfs/9999_9999_091_en-GB.pdf, pg. 144.
\177\ https://www.cupraofficial.com/content/dam/public/cupra-website/owners/cupra-car-model-manuals/brochures/CUPRA_FORMENTOR_06_21_EN.pdf, pg. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to give manufacturers design flexibility, we do not
propose to require that the warning depict all rear seating positions.
Our proposed requirements would allow the visual warning to consist of
text or icons indicating how many or which rear seats are fastened or
unfastened. For example, the warning text might consist of ``Middle and
Right rear seat belts fastened.'' Another visual warning option would
be the seat belt icon with an adjacent numeral indicating the number of
rear seat belts fastened. Accordingly, the proposal would allow, but
not require, use of a pictogram as recommended by Safe Ride News. We
are not requiring this because we believe it would be difficult to
implement on vehicles such as passenger vans with many rear seats. (We
also note that R16, which requires the visual warning to indicate all
rear seats, does not apply to vehicles that transport more than eight
passengers.) We acknowledge that vehicles with a larger number of rear
seats, such as passenger vans/buses, may encounter visual signal
complexities; however, we are not dictating specific types of signals
in the proposed requirements in order to ensure manufacturers have
adequate flexibility to address these types of issues. We think these
vehicles, in particular, would benefit from the option to indicate how
many rear seats are fastened.
We seek comment on all of these issues, including the type of
visual warnings that rear seat belt reminder systems employ currently
or may employ in the future. We also seek comment on whether we should
consider further aligning with R16 by requiring the visual warning to
indicate all rear seating positions, which features of a visual warning
would be appropriate for buses, and whether any further amendments to
FMVSS No. 101 are necessary (e.g., the common space requirements in
S5.5).
5. Belt Use Criteria
The ANPRM sought comment on whether NHTSA should retain, for a rear
seat belt warning, the criteria used for the current driver's seat belt
warning to determine if the occupant is belted. The current driver's
belt warning requirements specify that a belt is ``not in use'' when,
at the option of the
[[Page 61700]]
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.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ S7.3(c). These are the definitions for manual belts. For
automatic belts, see infra Section XII.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECE R16 defines an ``unfastened'' belt to mean ``either the safety-
belt buckle of any occupant is not engaged or the length of the pulled
out webbing is less than the length of the webbing which is needed to
buckle an un-occupied seat in the rear most seating position.'' \179\
Euro NCAP does not specify a webbing spool-out criteria, and only
refers to the status of the belt buckle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ Section 2.46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Three commenters supported using the existing FMVSS No. 208
criteria.
A commenter suggested harmonizing with ECE R16, regardless of the
type of system, in order to provide flexibility for vehicles that may
have different characteristics with respect to rear row seating
positions; for example, for rear seats that can be removed from a
vehicle, providing an option whereby belt spooling can be used as an
alternative to buckle latching may reduce challenges associated with
any electrical connections that might be otherwise needed to provide
functionality.
Other commenters suggested using different belt use criteria
considering the wide range of possible occupants, devices (e.g., car
seats), and objects in rear seats, but did not offer possible
solutions. One commenter stated that any seat belt use criteria should
take into account whether a bypass system for CRS installation would be
employed to prevent false warnings caused by using the lower anchors.
Another commenter stated that the prolific use of LATCH seats and
integrated child seats on buses will necessitate an alternate means of
seat belt use detection.
Agency Response
The current FMVSS No. 208 belt use criteria for the driver's seat
belt warning requirements have been in place since 1974 and allow for
the use of a belt latch or spool-out sensor. While these criteria would
be effective for determining belt use for the initial seat belt
warning, we believe the use of a spool-out sensor would not allow for
an objective or reliable criterion for the proposed change-of-status
warning. There may be instances where the webbing may not readily spool
back in when the seat belt is unbuckled (e.g., due to the use of
shoulder belt routing features or the use of a belt positioning booster
seat), and thus would not reliably trigger the change-of-status
warning. Therefore, we are proposing amending the belt use criteria in
FMVSS No. 208, for the seat belt warning requirements, to rely on the
use of a belt latch sensor, and not provide requirements that would
accommodate the use of a spool-out sensor. We believe this is
consistent with Euro NCAP. We invite comment on this tentative decision
to not accommodate the use of spool-out sensors for the belt use
criterion and request any data on the prevalence of the use of spool-
out sensors in the fleet.
Concerns about false alarms triggered by LATCH use for the
installation of child restraints are already addressed by the simple
approach, in line with NHTSA's recommendations, that parents and
caregivers fasten and lock the unused seat belts for the seat where the
child restraint is being installed. This is an already existing agency
recommendation to prevent seat belt entanglement and would prevent
false warnings related to LATCH use.
6. Electrical Connections
In the ANPRM, we explained that a rear seat belt warning system
might require an electrical connection between the seat and the vehicle
to relay the information gathered by a belt latch or webbing spool-out
sensor to the rest of the warning system. A rear-belt warning system
may therefore, as several commenters to the RFC noted,\180\ 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 automatically reestablished for
these seats when the seat is reinstalled. There could be instances with
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. If the electrical
connection is not reestablished, the warning system could malfunction
or provide inaccurate information. Removable seats are mainly found in
the second row of minivans.\181\ Foldable, rotating or otherwise
stowable seats (e.g., Stow-n-Go, Flip and Fold) are prominent in the
third row of minivans or large SUVs. Foldable or stowable seats in the
second row are not as prominent in minivans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0061 (comments of IEE S.A.,
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of Global
Automakers, and Automotive Safety Council).
\181\ We consider readily removable seats to be seats designed
to be easily removed and replaced by means installed by the
manufacturer for that purpose (see FMVSS No. 208 S4.1.4.2.2.), and
do not require any special tools for their removal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither Euro NCAP nor ECE R16 have any requirements that address
the potential for improper electrical connections for such seats. The
ECE regulations provide that the rear seat belt warning requirements
would not apply to folding rear seats or to seats fitted with an s-type
belt (including a harness belt) until September 2022.\182\ Euro NCAP
does not exclude folding seats and includes all seating positions
including optional and removable seats, but does not require the
monitoring of the buckle status for rear seat belt secondary buckles
that require a tool to unlock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ See Sections 8.4.1.3 and 15.4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Three commenter stated that removable, suspension and folding seats
are complex and raise reliability and technological readiness concerns
and should be exempted from the warning requirements until it would be
practicable. Two of these commenters said that if a seat belt warning
were required for such seats, significant lead time or a phase-in
(e.g., until the vehicle platform was updated) would be necessary.
Commenters stated that a rule should include some or all of these
seat types. A commenter stated that, although these seats may present
challenges for rear seat belt warning systems, NHTSA has provided no
evidence that, in cases other than removable seats, the challenges
would be insurmountable, or quantified the portion of the target
population represented by occupants of these types of seats, which
likely includes many children. Another commenter stated that removable
seats would not need to be exempted from the requirements (as they
currently are from ECE R16) if specific types of electrical connections
or technology (e.g., wired buckle switch, wireless buckle switch, belt
extension) were not required.
Commenters said that electrical connections for removable,
rotating, flipping and folding seats should not require any action on
the part of the consumer because vehicles with these seats frequently
transport children, and believed that NHTSA should also consider
requiring wireless connections and a warning for an improper
connection.
Commenters were against any prescriptive design requirements
related to the connection between the vehicle
[[Page 61701]]
and any removeable, folding, rotating, or stowable seats, and in favor
of a robust set of compliance options to facilitate new technology
(although one commenter also said that any additional time it would
take NHTSA to develop such options would not be justified by the
limited benefits and relatively small number of affected vehicles). A
commenter said that NHTSA should instead include a reliability
requirement (e.g., lifetime warranty).
Two commenters expressed concerns with wiring complexities
associated with buses. One of these commenters specifically noted
track-mounted seats, which can be repositioned by the end user, which
are also subject to improper connections and for which wireless
communication technology is not currently available.
Agency Response
We have tentatively decided not to exempt any of these seat types
from the proposed requirements. We are not exempting suspension and/or
folding seats; the electrical connections should not be disturbed
because these seats are not readily removable, and they would
potentially just require additional wiring to accommodate the folding
or stowing process. We are also not exempting removable seats because
we tentatively believe that concerns with improper electrical
connections will be addressed by the proposed warning requirement
discussed below. Applying the requirements to these seats also
harmonizes with ECE R16 (which will soon fully phase in the rear belt
requirements for these seats) and Euro NCAP. We do not consider a
phase-in necessary for suspension and/or folding seats because we
believe the solution for these seats is simple. For removable seats a
phase-in is unnecessary because readily attachable electrical
connections appear feasible. We do not believe buses would be subject
to these requirements, given our definition of readily removable seats.
We have tentatively decided not to propose any requirements with
respect to the electrical connections for folding, rotating, or
stowable seats. Because these seats are not readily removable, the
electrical connections should not be disturbed and could be
accommodated with additional wiring. We are, however, proposing two
requirements related to the electrical connections for readily
removable seats.
First, we are proposing that readily removable seats must either
automatically connect the electrical connections when the seat is put
in place (i.e., not require the vehicle user to take any additional
action to reconnect the electrical connections other than re-installing
the seat) or, if a manual connection is required (i.e., the user must
reconnect the electrical system), the connectors must be readily-
accessible.\183\ By readily-accessible connectors we mean connectors
that are easy for an ordinary consumer to see and access. A system
utilizing a wireless connection could be classified as either automatic
or manual, depending on whether the user needs to take any additional
actions to establish the wireless connection. We agree with the
commenters who recommended no prescriptive requirements in order to
ensure OEMs have flexibility in system design. We think the proposal
balances flexibility and the need to ensure that a proper connection is
made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ As we note in Section X.C.7 below, we also propose that
the owner's manual (which includes information provided by the
vehicle manufacturer to the consumer, whether in digital or printed
form) include instructions on how to make any manual electric
connections for readily removable seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, we are proposing that vehicles utilizing the negative-only
compliance option provide a visual warning to the driver if a proper
electrical connection has not been established for a readily removable
seat. We are concerned that consumers could reinstall removable seats
(with either automatic or manual connections) without making a proper
electrical connection. 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 (e.g., debris, broken connector) and a
proper connection may not be made. If the electrical connection is not
reestablished, the warning system could malfunction or provide
inaccurate information. We are only proposing to require the warning
for negative-only systems because a faulty connection would result in
the system not triggering any warning of an unbelted rear seat
occupant. Moreover, the driver would otherwise have no reason to
suspect that the system was malfunctioning, and so might mistake the
lack of a warning as an indication that the rear seat occupant was
belted.
These potentially serious problems are not present in full-status
or positive-only warning systems. First, it is our expectation that a
faulty connection for a full-status system would affect both the
occupant detection and belt status. However, if for some reason this is
not the case and the occupant detection of a full-status system is
working properly, but the seat belt buckle sensor is not connected
properly, then no visual warning should activate without input from the
buckle sensor and the driver should easily recognize the system is not
working properly. If for this same scenario, the system interprets a
lack of input from the seat belt sensor as an unbuckled seat belt when
the driver verifies or requests the rear seat occupant to buckle their
seat belt and the occupant is already buckled, then the driver would
again be aware the system is not working properly. If the occupant
detection sensors are not connected properly, the driver would be aware
of the number of rear seat occupants being transported, and would thus
be aware that the system is not operating correctly when there is not a
warning for each occupant. Similarly, if there were not a good
connection in a vehicle with a positive-only system, an unbelted rear
seat occupant would not register as belted, which would be accurate; a
belted passenger would also not register as belted, but since the
passenger would be belted, there would be no adverse consequences from
the system error if a crash were to occur.
We believe that both of these requirements would mainly affect
minivans, which make up a small percentage of the fleet.\184\ We
believe it might be possible to utilize the rear seat belt visual
warning signal, with slight modifications (e.g., a different color).
The agency seeks comments on this proposal, particularly on the safety
need for such warnings, costs, and feasibility of the proposed warning.
We also seek comment on whether this telltale should be added to table
2 of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and displays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ We estimate that minivans make up 3.6% of vehicles
produced based on MY 2015 WardsAuto production data. The number of
minivans that would potentially be affected by this proposed
requirement is less than 3.6%, because some minivans only have
foldable/stowable rear seats, not removable seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the regulations or statutes administered by NHTSA require
manufacturers to provide a lifetime warranty. However, if a vehicle or
item of equipment is determined (by the manufacturer or NHTSA) to have
a safety-related defect or fails to meet an applicable FMVSS, the
Safety Act requires the manufacturer to notify the owner of the defect
or noncompliance and (if the vehicle or item is not more than 15 years
old) remedy the vehicle or item without charge to the vehicle owner.
7. Owner's Manual Instructions
The ANPRM sought comment on requiring the owner's manual to provide
[[Page 61702]]
information on the warning system's features, including the location,
format, and meaning of the visual warnings. Because the owner's manual
readership may be relatively low,\185\ we also sought comment on
whether this information should be displayed in the vehicle instead of
(or in addition to) the owner's manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
None of the commenters opposed such a requirement. Several
commenters supported including such information in the owner's manual.
Some commenters requested flexibility in describing the functionality
of the system. One commenter suggested that the owner's manual could
include information on the seating positions where a rear-seat reminder
is provided, a description of the visual and audible warning(s), an
indication of whether the system incorporates driver monitoring
(including any limitations), instructions for deactivating or
cancelling any warning(s), any limitations related to CRS, and
information related to the connection of removable, folding, rotating,
or stowable seats.
A commenter believed that information should also be displayed in-
vehicle, especially for one-time vehicle users (renters, friends,
family), and especially with respect to electrical connections for
removable/stowable seats. Another commenter believed that more research
on the best way to communicate this to owners is needed.
A commenter stated that information on how a rear seat belt
reminder affects CRS installation should be provided, including whether
the system is able to detect a CRS (and avoid false warnings).
Agency Response
We propose that the owner's manual (which includes information
provided by the vehicle manufacturer to the consumer, whether in
digital or printed form) describe the warning system's features,
including the location, format, and meaning of the visual warnings. We
also propose that the owner's manual include instructions on how to
make any manual electrical connections for readily removable seats.
This will provide manufacturers flexibility for how they describe the
functionality of the system. These proposed additions to the owner's
manual requirements in FMVSS No. 208 would require a revision to the
approved collection of information OMB No. 2127-0541. Later in this
proposed rule, we seek comment on this revision.
With regard to including system functionality information in the
vehicle itself, these types of vehicle features are not normally
explained visually in the vehicle, other than information on air bags
which pose safety risks. This level of detail is best described in the
owner's manual.
We are aware of at least one manufacturer that provides information
in the owner's manual on how their rear belt warning system with
occupant detection functions when a CRS is installed with LATCH and
guidance on how to avoid activating the warning (for example, it
informs the consumer that fastening the seat belt prior to installing a
CRS with LATCH will avoid activating the warning system for that
seat).\186\ We seek comment on whether we should require including such
information in the owner's manual (which includes information provided
by the vehicle manufacturer to the consumer, whether in digital or
printed form).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ As noted earlier, NHTSA recommends buckling unused seat
belts that are within reach of children to prevent seat belt
entanglement and/or strangulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Interaction With Other Vehicle Warnings
The ANPRM also solicited comment on whether a rear seat belt
warning could conflict with other in-vehicle warnings, and how this
might be addressed.
Comments
A few commenters believed that the rear belt reminder could
conflict with other warnings. One commenter believed that there are
conflicts and that the rear seat belt warnings should be given priority
over other warnings. Two commenters recommended that NHTSA provide
flexibility for rear-seat reminder system alerts (or aspects of the
alert) to be temporarily suppressed or paused where it is necessary to
alert or redirect the driver's attention to higher-priority warnings--
for example, related to the operation of the vehicle or a potential
safety risk within the external roadway environment, such as an alert
provided by an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), crash
avoidance system or automated driving system (ADS) request to
intervene. Another commenter recommended that the existing FMVSS No.
101 Seat Belt Unfastened Telltale be utilized as a persistent
``baseline'' warning when there is an active seat belt warning for any
occupant, even in the event that the display of detailed seat belt
information is prevented by a higher priority warning.
Other commenters did not believe there would be conflicts with
other warnings, and one manufacturer did not believe there would be a
conflict if the audible warning is accompanied by a visual warning.
Agency Response
NHTSA is proposing that the rear seat belt reminder telltale must
not be overridden by other visual warnings for the required duration.
This is consistent with the current requirements in FMVSS No. 101 for
the driver's seat belt warning which specify, among other things, that
the seat belt telltale must displace any other symbol or message in
that common space while the underlying condition for the telltale's
activation exists.\187\ We do not believe that the seat belt warning
requirements will interfere with other warnings for safety systems
since they have dedicated warning signals. This should give
manufacturers the flexibility to determine the best way to implement
their warnings. For instance, warnings for a potential safety risk can
be more aggressive than those for the seat belts. With regard to
available space, the visual signal might be displayed as a telltale
light on the instrument panel or on the vehicle's information display
screen. Manufacturers will also have to determine whether the driver
and rear passenger seat belt visual warning will be treated the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ FMVSS No. 101, S5.5.5. See discussion supra, Section
X.C.4, Telltale characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Alternative Warning Signals
The ANPRM sought comment on requiring or specifying 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 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. We
also sought comment on alternative solutions that would alert the
driver when a rear seat passenger buckles and/or unbuckles (e.g.,
mirrors to see whether belts are buckled, or the sound of the latch
plate clicking into the buckle).
Comments
Many commenters recommended requiring the traditional audio-visual
[[Page 61703]]
warnings currently used for the front seats. One commenter stated that
warning specifications should be based on effectiveness and that audio-
visual warnings would likely be highly effective given occupants'
familiarity with them; it did not believe that a less-sophisticated
warning, such as a specialized system of mirrors, would be sufficient
to inform the driver about the status of the rear seat belts. Two
commenters noted the potential for confusion/distraction if an
alternative warning were used. A commenter stated that the ``click'' of
the belt buckle, while certainly evidence of a buckled seat belt, can
easily be missed by the driver and other occupants, as it could be
masked not only by the drivers' own belt clicking, but also by ambient
noise in the vehicle, and that, given the research supporting the
effectiveness of an audio-visual signal, an alternative warning system
would not be acceptable. Two commenters said that an alternate warning
is not necessary because ECE R16's requirements are adequate.
A commenter said that, in addition to requiring an audio-visual
warning, the proposed rule should require a notification on the
instrument cluster if a seat belt is unbuckled that must be
acknowledged by the driver before any other use of the instrument panel
is permitted.
A commenter stated that rear seat belt warnings are not practicable
for buses, but if they were used, an audible alarm similar to that
required for emergency exits would be necessary to provide an effective
notice to the driver. The commenter believed that the interior mirror
on buses designed to permit the driver to view the passengers, while
not as effective in determining proper seat belt use as an electronic
monitoring system, has been effective in aiding the driver to observe
passengers that were obviously not properly belted. The commenter did
not support the use of haptic signals on buses. A public commenter
suggested use of cameras.
Agency Response
We agree with the commenters who believe that an alternative
warning is not necessary and that an audio-visual warning would be
appropriate.\188\ Cameras would be unnecessary and would add cost. The
agency believes that mirrors alone would not be as effective as an
audio-visual warning and may pose risks, as drivers would have to study
the view to determine belt status, assuming they could clearly see the
belts. In addition, as explained above, the proposed rule would not
apply to school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ With respect to Blue Bird's argument regarding the
practicability of a rear warning for buses, see Section X.B,
Applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are specifying minimum performance requirements in order to
balance the effectiveness and acceptability of these systems.
Manufacturers can go beyond our requirements, such as by providing a
warning on the instrument panel that must be acknowledged by the driver
before any other use of the instrument panel is permitted.
E. Resistance to Intentional and Inadvertent Defeat and Deactivation
The ANPRM sought comment on whether NHTSA should propose
requirements to address circumvention. We pointed to agency research on
the development of a seat belt misuse detection system that identified
a number of ways in which a rear seat belt warning system might be
intentionally defeated, as well as potential countermeasures.\189\ For
example, a warning system could be defeated if:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ 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 is buckled before the occupant sits 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 both seat belt latch 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.
The seat belt and/or occupant detection sensors utilized
by the rear warning system in vehicles with removable rear seats are
intentionally disconnected.
We also noted some ways in which the warning could be inadvertently
circumvented (for example, when the driver uses a remote engine starter
so that the initial warning activates before the driver is in the
vehicle).
We also sought comment on whether a feature allowing single-trip
manual deactivation would diminish the likelihood of circumvention. 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.\190\ Under those 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.\191\ 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. It must not be
possible to provide either short- or long-term deactivation of the
visual warning. Under Euro NCAP, the system may allow the driver to
acknowledge the signal and switch it off for that unique event, except
for change-of-status events; a new trigger of the warning should not be
prevented.\192\ We therefore understand there to be two distinct but
related concepts in the ECE regulations and Euro NCAP: acknowledgement
and deactivation. The former allows the driver to turn off the signal
once it is activated, while the latter prevents the signal from
activating altogether. In addition, FMVSS No. 101 provides that
telltales for several functions (such as high beams), but not including
the driver's seat belt warning, must not be cancelable while the
underlying condition for their activation exists.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ Section 8.4.5.
\191\ Section 8.4.5.1.
\192\ Section 3.4.3.1.2.
\193\ S5.5.6(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Several commenters supported addressing intentional and/or
inadvertent defeat. A commenter stated that, given the relatively small
proportion of hard-core nonusers, the proportion of the potential
target population seeking to intentionally defeat the systems is
relatively small. Nonetheless, the commenter stated that, if mitigation
strategies can be built into the systems, such an advance would likely
help address at least some portion of ``hard-core nonusers'' as well as
those exhibiting inadvertent misuse. Commenters believed that the cost
of the potential countermeasures would be minimal, and they should be
required to the extent feasible. A commenter stated that the rear
warning system should include appropriate requirements for inadvertent
defeat, but not intentional defeat. Another commenter supported
investigating the possibility of eliminating the ``false comply''
[[Page 61704]]
condition of buckling behind the back or extracting and ``pinning'' the
belt without buckling. One potential option is to replicate current
systems used to identify seat belt use for front seated occupants, as
occupant detection systems can also assist with identifying misuse.
They also commented that sensor technology that identifies belt
pullout, occupant location, and buckle switches can add redundancy and
reduce the risk of intentional and inadvertent defeat.
Other commenters disagreed with hardening the system against
circumvention because it would be burdensome and unnecessary (minimal
benefits). One commenter noted the relatively small proportion of
drivers who circumvent the seat belt warning.
With respect to deactivation, three commenters supported following
R16, and IEE supported following R16 and/or Euro NCAP. Three other
commenters opposed allowing deactivation because it would drastically
weaken system effectiveness.
We also received comments on the interaction with a remote engine
starter and the warning. A commenter believed that adopting the
requirements of R16 should help address this issue, as warnings must be
provided when the ignition switch (or master control switch) is
activated (i.e., capable of being driven). The commenter also believed
that the current driver's warning requirements (where the warning is
provided beginning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the
``on'' or the ``start'' position) address this issue. Another commenter
recommended that NHTSA specify the start of the drive as the moment
when the ignition is activated in the mode where the vehicle is capable
of being driven. A commenter stated that this potential issue can
easily be avoided with occupant detection, because the warning cycle
would only be triggered based on the actual presence of occupants.
Agency Response
We have tentatively decided not to propose any system-hardening
features. In drafting this proposal, the agency focused on extending
the rear seat belt warning technologies currently in a relatively small
proportion of vehicles to the rest of the fleet. These existing systems
generally do not provide mechanisms to limit circumvention. We decided
not to include requirements to address circumvention for a variety of
reasons. Most importantly, doing so would increase cost and complexity.
For example, since we are not proposing to require occupant detection
technology, we are not proposing a sequential logic system. We also
believe that because the proposed warnings are minimally intrusive--a
relatively short-duration visual warning on start-up, and an additional
short audio-visual warning for a seat belt that is subsequently
unbuckled--attempts to defeat the system will be rare.
We have also tentatively decided not to allow acknowledgement or
deactivation of the required warning signals. While some commenters
suggested adopting the R16 requirements, they did not offer further
information on the need or use of these options, except for one
commenter that noted it would diminish the safety value of the system.
Therefore, we believe that proposing to allow an acknowledgment, short-
term deactivation, and or long-term deactivation option would have a
net negative impact on the effectiveness of the proposed warning system
(the driver would not get the full benefit of the warning). As
discussed earlier in this proposed rule, we believe that the proposed
warnings are minimally intrusive and have relatively short durations
(visual-only at start-up and audio-visual for a change-of-status), and
the positive-only compliance option would mitigate warnings for
unoccupied seats. In addition, we believe that allowing the driver to
turn off the change-of-status warning would not meet the need for
safety. Since we cannot justify allowing such options from a safety
perspective (allowing it would negatively impact the effectiveness of
the systems) or consumer acceptance perspective (warning signals are
unobtrusive and vehicle manufacturers could opt for the positive-only
option), we have tentatively decided not to allow either a deactivation
or acknowledgment option. For this reason, we also propose amending
FMVSS No. 101 S5.5.6(b) by adding the seat belt telltale to the list of
telltales that may not be cancellable while the underlying condition
for the telltale exists. This would apply to both the front and rear
seat belt warnings. This would mean that the seat belt warning telltale
would not be allowed to be acknowledged (i.e., cancelled) until the
minimum warning duration had been reached.
We seek comment on vehicle manufacturers' desire to provide such
options, and, if they currently offer such options, how they have
implemented them. We also seek comment on whether allowing such options
would affect manufacturers' choice of compliance option (e.g., if we
allowed acknowledging or deactivating the warning signals, would they
be more inclined to choose the negative-only or full-status compliance
options?). We also seek comment on our proposed revision of FMVSS No.
101.
In vehicles with a remote engine starter, the driver would
potentially not be present to witness the initial warning signals if
they are designed to meet our minimum requirements. This could
potentially be addressed by programming the system to require input
from the door sensors or occupant sensors to verify that the driver is
in the vehicle, or by requiring the signals to initiate when the
transmission is moved out of the park mode. We have chosen not to
propose a strategy for this scenario, but request comments on
practicable solutions to this problem that could be implemented in the
final rule and the potential cost impacts. New technologies or
solutions may be available that may address these scenarios without
limiting the design flexibility of manufacturers or significantly
increasing the cost.
F. Consumer Acceptance
In the ANPRM we explained that in order for the proposed rear seat
belt warning to have a lasting impact on seat belt use, it must balance
effectiveness and acceptability. For a seat belt warning system to
induce an unbelted occupant to buckle up, the warning must be
noticeable enough to attract the occupant's attention, or, for a
warning directed at the driver, the driver's attention. However, if the
warning is overly intrusive, consumers may not accept the
technology.\194\ Therefore, 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, or that an occupant will
circumvent or disable it. 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. NHTSA is especially
aware of this concern, given the agency's experience with public and
Congressional backlash in the 1970s over the ignition interlock and
continuous warning buzzer regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ DOT 2009 Seat Belt Study at 2; Transportation Research
Board Study at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also noted research by NHTSA and others suggesting that
consumers would accept the new technology. The 2004 Transportation
Research Board Report observed that ``the data available to date
provide strongly converging
[[Page 61705]]
evidence in support of both the potential effectiveness and consumer
acceptance of many new seat belt use technologies[.]'' \195\ As part of
the research for the report, NHTSA conducted focus-group interviews
with part-time and hard-core nonusers. 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.'' \196\ The ANPRM also pointed to a
telephone survey of drivers of vehicles with and without a rear seat
belt warning system that NHTSA conducted in 2015.\197\ The rear warning
systems in those vehicles had characteristics that were similar to the
proposed requirements: a visual warning on start-up and an audio-visual
change-of-status warning. The survey found, among other things, that
81% of drivers of vehicles with a rear seat belt warning were ``very
satisfied'' with the system; less than 2% 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ Transportation Research Board Study at 75-76.
\196\ Id. at pg. 10.
\197\ 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). The vehicles with seat belt warning systems were Volvos and
certain Cadillac and Chevrolet models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Several commenters believed that consumers would accept rear seat
belt warnings. Commenters said that NHTSA's research shows that a large
proportion of the consumer population will accept rear seat belt
warnings and it noted that at the time of the interlock issue in the
1970s, seat belt use rates were much lower than today, and a larger
proportion of the population were hard-core nonusers. A commenter
stated that its survey of 2,000 drivers showed that 70 percent favored
a law requiring seat belt reminders that continuously chime until the
seat belt is buckled, including rear seat passengers.\198\ Another
commenter noted a 2012 IIHS survey showing that most motorists
supported enhanced belt reminders that were ``more persistent and
intense'' than what most automakers offered at the time.\199\ The
commenter also noted the results of NHTSA's 2015 survey. Another
commenter said that IIHS has found that the majority of drivers in the
U.S. who transport passengers would accept a rear seat belt reminder
system.\200\ This study found that parents believed an audible alert to
be especially useful in alerting the driver to a child unbuckling in
the back seat during a trip. A commenter suggested that consumers would
accept R16-conforming systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ Citing www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/underutilized-strategies-in-traffic-safety-results-of-a-nationally-representative-survey.aspx (last accessed Oct. 25, 2021).
\199\ Citing Highway Loss Data Inst., Ins. Inst. for Highway
Safety, Unbelted: Adults Admit They Often Skip Belts in Rear Seat,
52 Status Rep. 1, 3 (Aug. 3, 2017), available at www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/pdf/52/5 (last accessed Oct. 25,
2021).
\200\ Citing David G. Kidd & Anne T. McCartt (2014) Drivers'
Attitudes Toward Front or Rear Child Passenger Belt Use and Seat
Belt Reminders at These Seating Positions, Traffic Injury
Prevention, 15:3, 278-286, DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2013.810333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter said that further studies are necessary because there
is insufficient data on consumer acceptance.
Agency Response
NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the proposed warning system
would be acceptable to consumers in light of the specific
characteristics of the proposed warning signals, real-world experience
with seat belt reminder systems, and research and consumer surveys by
NHTSA and others.
We believe that the proposed requirements are specified so that the
potential for consumer disapproval is minimized. Our intent was to
specify minimum warning requirements that would result in an effective
yet acceptable warning. With respect to the warning on start-up, we
propose requiring only a visual warning, and not a more intrusive
audible alert. The 60-second duration is comparable to the visual rear
seat belt warnings provided by currently deployed systems. For example,
the visual rear belt warning in some MY2022 vehicles lasts for at least
60 seconds.\201\ The change-of-status warning would involve an audio-
visual alert lasting at least 30 seconds. While most vehicle models
currently available in the U.S. with rear seat belt warning systems
have a change-of-status warning that meets this 30-second minimum
duration, we are aware of two available models that exceed this
duration for the rear change-of-status warning. False positives would
also be minimized because the positive-only compliance option only
necessitates a buckle sensor, not occupant detection, which is more
prone to false positives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ We identified three manufacturers that produce vehicles
with visual warnings that last for at least 60 seconds. One
manufacturer provides vehicles where the visual warning stays active
until the belt is fastened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent field experience also suggests that consumers would accept
the proposed requirements. As noted earlier, an increasing number of
vehicles sold in the United States have rear seat belt warning systems;
based on 2022 Purchasing with Safety in Mind: What to Look For When
Buying a Vehicle information, 46.9% of the total vehicle projected
sales are equipped with rear SBWS.\202\ Moreover, in connection with
the 2010 RFC, GM commented that it has not received any complaints
about its rear seat belt warning system in either the United States or
Europe,\203\ and Volvo indicated that it had found a high level of
acceptance for its system.\204\ In addition to this, many OEMs have
implemented enhanced seat belt warnings for the front outboard seats
over the past two decades. Consumers' acceptance of these warnings also
suggests that they would accept warnings for the rear seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ In the ANPRM it was 13% based on MY2019 vehicle data.
\203\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0061 (GM comment).
\204\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0061 (Volvo comment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in addition to the research noted in the ANPRM we note the
studies cited by the commenters that support our tentative conclusion
that consumers would accept the proposed warnings. In 2012, IIHS
conducted a national telephone survey of drivers and passengers about
seat belt use. Using this survey data, it proceeded to conduct several
studies.
One study, cited by the commenters, was on the attitudes towards
seat belt use and in-vehicle technologies for encouraging seat belt
use.\205\ All respondents were asked questions regarding their belt use
habits and perceptions of different types of seat belt interlocks.
Part-time belt users and nonusers were additionally questioned about
different types of reminders and reminder strategies. The survey found
that enhanced reminders are more acceptable than seat belt interlocks
and are viewed as having the potential to be as effective as interlocks
if sufficiently persistent. A larger proportion of part-time belt users
and nonusers said they would be more likely to buckle up in response to
auditory and haptic reminders than visual reminders. More
[[Page 61706]]
than two-thirds of part-time belt users and at least one-third of
nonusers said they would be more likely to buckle up in response to
seat belt reminders that become more intense or continue indefinitely;
these reminders would be acceptable to about half of part-time belt
users and around one-fifth of nonusers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ Kidd, McCartt, & Oesch. Attitudes Towards Seat Belt Use
and In-Vehicle Technologies for Encouraging Belt Use. Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety. January 2013. The study over-sampled
part-time belt users and nonusers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another study cited by the commenters used the same survey that
also collected information about drivers' attitudes towards passenger
belt use and belt reminders for front passengers and children in back
seats.\206\ This study used the 477 respondents (of the 1,218 total
surveyed) that were drivers who transport a front-seat passenger at
least once a week and 254 were drivers who transport an 8- to 15-year-
old child in the back seat. The respondents were asked about their
attitudes toward seat belt use by their front passengers or rear child
passengers and preferences for different passenger belt reminder
features. The study found that nearly every driver who transports
children in the back seat would encourage their belt use, regardless of
the driver's belt use habits. Most drivers who transport front
passengers wanted passenger seat belt reminders to encourage passengers
to buckle up. As far as signal characteristics, the study found that
front and rear passenger reminder signals that last indefinitely would
be acceptable to most drivers who transport these passengers, and that
an audible alert may be especially useful to alert drivers to children
unbuckling in the rear seat during a trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ Kidd, D.G. and McCartt, A.T. 2013. Drivers' attitudes
toward front or rear child passenger belt use and seat belt
reminders at these seating positions. Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, January 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We therefore tentatively conclude that consumers would accept the
proposed warnings. NHTSA recognizes that there is some proportion of
the public that may not desire a rear belt warning system.\207\
However, based on extensive research by NHTSA and others, we agree with
commenters that consumers are more accepting of seat belt warnings now
than in the 1970s.\208\ We are also mindful of Congress's repeal of the
duration limitation on the audible warning for the driver's seat belt,
as well as its directive to NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking for rear
seat belt use systems. We believe this likewise suggests that the
public would be amenable to appropriately specified warnings. NHTSA
welcomes public comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ For example, in NHTSA 2015 phone survey, for drivers of
vehicles without a rear belt warning, 23% found their vehicle's seat
belt warning (i.e., for the front outboard passenger seats)
annoying, and 16% would not need or want a seat belt warning system
in their vehicle.
\208\ See also, e.g., Highway Loss Data Inst., Ins. Inst. for
Highway Safety, Unbelted: Adults Admit They Often Skip Belts in Rear
Seat, 52 Status Rep. 1, 3 (Aug. 3, 2017) (indicating that most rear
belt nonusers are not hard-core nonusers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Technological and Economic Feasibility
The ANPRM sought comment on the technological and economic
feasibility of rear belt warning systems.
Comments
Several commenters stated that rear warnings are technically
feasible. Four commenters stated that rear warning requirements in
foreign markets show that such systems are technically feasible and
available. Two commenters also noted that rear reminders are already
available in a number of makes and models in the United States, with a
commenter noting that Volvo has been offering such a system in the
United States since 2009.
A commenter said that because technological complexity and cost
will depend on the specifics of the particular system, NHTSA should
provide OEMs flexibility by establishing baseline performance
requirements with compliance options that would allow for more advanced
system characteristics.
Another commenter stated that buses present challenges for a rear
seat belt warning system with respect to the number of passengers and
harshness of the interior environment. The commenter also said that it
would be difficult integrating a passenger seat system with rear seat
belt warnings that are the same as the OEM driver and copilot warning
system, so that the warnings may not match. The commenter said that
there are seat belt warning systems being developed that utilize
wireless technology and such a system would be less complex than a
wired electrical connection system. The limitation of a wireless system
is the battery life, and more system features such as individual
passenger alerts would reduce battery life further. However, a battery-
operated wireless system would be much simpler for large vehicles with
many passengers, as it would reduce the need for complex wiring
systems. Another commenter believed that larger vehicles with many rear
designated seating positions could present technical challenges,
including the ability of a system to differentiate between objects that
might be placed on seats and actual passengers of various weights and
sizes.
Agency Response
NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the proposed requirements are
technologically and economically practicable.\209\ Based on 2022
Purchasing with Safety in Mind: What to Look For When Buying a Vehicle
information, 46.9% of the total U.S. vehicle projected sales are
equipped with rear seat belt warning systems. For vehicles that do not
already incorporate a rear seat belt warning system, the positive-only
compliance option would require seat belt sensors, wiring, and display
adjustments. All of this technology is readily available. The seat belt
latch sensors that would be needed for all three systems are already
used by many manufacturers to comply with the existing driver seat belt
requirements. Occupant detection might present technological challenges
but would not be necessary for a positive-only warning system. As we
explain in more detail in Section XIV, Overview of Costs and Benefits,
we estimate that the minimum cost to comply with the rear seat belt
warning requirements (the positive-only system) would be $167.8
million. This is based on a per-vehicle cost of $19.59 for 53.1% of 16M
affected new vehicles. As explained later, our preliminary regulatory
impact analysis indicates that the proposed requirements are cost-
beneficial across a range of discount rates and reasonable
effectiveness estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ See also Section XIV, Overview of Benefits and Costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we noted in the ANPRM, 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 also have to determine
whether driver and rear passenger seat belt warning visual signals
would be treated the same.
We also recognize that vehicles with many rear designated seating
positions may present some challenges, but we have tentatively
concluded that they should be subject to the proposed requirements
(with the exception of school buses) because those vehicles would be at
least as likely, if not more likely, to have rear occupants. In
addition, multiple rear seats may increase the difficulty of the driver
in ascertaining rear seat belt use, so a warning could prove especially
useful
[[Page 61707]]
in these vehicles. We also recognize the intent of the MAP-21
requirements in improving protection for rear occupants, and given the
proven benefits of seat belts, believe the warning should be broadly
applied. Our main motivation for including small buses is to capture
large capacity passenger vans; these vehicles might utilize the option
of a warning that indicates the number of seat belts fastened. However,
we do seek comment on whether it would be appropriate to exclude
additional vehicle types.
Overall, we believe that the proposed compliance options would
provide manufacturers with the flexibility to innovate and develop new
technologies, while also ensuring a minimum level of safety. We seek
comments on the practicability of the proposed compliance options.
XI. Warning Requirements for Front Outboard Seats
We propose several changes and enhancements to the seat belt
warning requirements for the front outboard seats. There are three main
changes we are proposing.
First, we are proposing a requirement for an audio-visual warning
on vehicle start-up for the front outboard passenger seat. Currently,
the standard requires a short duration (4-60 seconds, depending on the
compliance option) audio-visual seat belt warning on vehicle start-up
for the driver's seat belt for most vehicles with a GVWR under 10,000
lb (excluding medium-sized buses), but not for any other front seats.
The vast majority of the vehicles being sold today (approximately 96.6%
of the fleet, according to information submitted by vehicle
manufacturers to NHTSA for NCAP in MY 2022) already provide a seat belt
warning for the front outboard passenger seat. We propose to require a
seat belt warning for this seat to ensure that all vehicles have this
important safety feature.
Second, we propose to close the current gap for a driver's seat
belt warning in medium-sized buses. We are unaware of any such buses
that do not already provide a driver's seat belt warning; requiring
this would ensure that they continue to have a driver seat belt warning
in the future.
Third, we propose several changes to the current requirements for
the audio-visual warning signal that currently apply to the driver's
seat that would also apply to the front outboard passenger seat. The
most notable of these is that we propose to require that the audio-
visual warning on vehicle start-up last until the belts at any occupied
front outboard seats are fastened, and a change-of-status warning for
any front outboard seat that would also last until the seat belt is
refastened (unless a front door is open).
These proposals are explained in more detail below.
A. Seat Belt Warning for Front Outboard Passenger Seat
This document proposes to require an audio-visual seat belt warning
for any front outboard passenger seat.\210\ FMVSS No. 208 currently
requires an audio-visual seat belt warning for the driver's seat in
passenger cars and trucks, buses, and MPVs with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less, except for buses with a GVWR greater than 3,855 kg
(8,500 lb) and less than or equal to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). NHTSA's
regulations currently do not require seat belt warnings for any seating
position other than the driver's seat.\211\ Although the ANPRM did not
discuss extending the seat belt warning requirements to any front
passenger seats, two commenters recommended that NHTSA amend FMVSS No.
208 to require a seat belt warning for all front seats, and another
commenter recommended adopting the ECE R16 requirements for front
outboard seating positions. ECE R16 requires an audio-visual seat belt
warning for the front outboard passenger seat.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ In Section XIII.C we discuss the potential for more than
one front outboard passenger seat in ADS-equipped vehicles.
\211\ 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.'').
\212\ Section 8.4.1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe there is good reason to do so, as the reasons for
ensuring the driver is buckled apply equally to front outboard
passenger. About 10.4% of right-front passengers do not always fasten
the belt \213\ and unbelted occupants are overrepresented in fatal
crashes. The lack of a seat belt warning requirement for the front
outboard passenger seat dates to the 1970s, when seat belt use rates
were much lower and seat belt warnings were not as acceptable to
consumers as they are today. Further, almost all (96.6%) vehicles
offered for sale in the U.S. that participate in the NCAP information
request are already equipped with a seat belt warning at this position,
so requiring such a warning would ensure that all vehicles be equipped
with a seat belt warning at this position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2021,
February). Seat belt use in 2020--Overall results (Traffic Safety
Facts Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 813 072). National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing an audio-visual warning on vehicle start-up
because research by NHTSA and others suggests that seat belt warnings
that use an audio-visual signal are more effective than visual warnings
alone. In addition, the potential technological, consumer acceptance,
and cost issues associated with requiring an audible warning for a rear
seat belt warning do not apply to an audible warning for the front
outboard passenger seat because, although the audible warning would
entail use of occupant detection technology, most vehicles are already
equipped with both an audible seat belt warning and occupant detection
for the front outboard passenger seat. This proposal would not require
that the audible warning be specific to either the driver or front
outboard passenger seat; therefore, manufacturers could utilize the
same audible warning for both seats as is done with some of the
existing front belt warning systems.
The proposed front outboard passenger seat requirements would apply
to all the vehicles to which the proposed rear belt warning
requirements would apply: all front outboard designated seating
positions in passenger cars, and all front outboard designated seating
positions certified to a compliance option requiring seat belts in
trucks, MPVs, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or
less.\214\ We have tentatively decided not to extend the seat belt
warning requirements to front center seats because our preliminary
regulatory impact analysis found that a system for the front center
seat without occupant detection would provide limited benefit due to
the low occupancy of the front center seat and the limited number of
vehicles in the fleet with a front center seat. See Section XIII,
Regulatory Alternatives, and the PRIA for a more detailed analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ There are some compliance options for certain trucks and
MPVs that permit passive protection in lieu of seat belts at the
front outboard seating positions. See S4.2.3 (compliance options for
trucks and MPVs weighing between 8,500-10,000 lb); S4.2.6 & S4.2.1.1
(compliance options for walk-in van-type trucks and vehicles
designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service 8,500 lb
and less).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupant Detection
Because we are proposing an audio-visual warning, we are also
proposing to require that any front outboard passenger seat be equipped
with an occupant detection system; an audio-visual warning is typically
only appropriate for occupied seats because having an audible warning
activate for an unoccupied seat could be a nuisance
[[Page 61708]]
for the occupants and might desensitize them to the warning or lead
them to circumvent the system. Requiring occupant detection is
consistent with Euro NCAP, which requires occupant detection for the
front passenger seat belt warning. In the United States, occupant
detection is already widely deployed in the front outboard passenger
seat, either as part of an advanced air bag system, or as part of a
voluntary seat belt warning system.\215\ Based on compliance and
consumer information data submitted to NHTSA by vehicle manufacturers,
NHTSA is not aware of any vehicles to which the proposed requirements
would apply that are not already equipped with occupant detection for
this seating position. This demonstrates that the technology is
feasible and that an occupant detection requirement would not result in
any additional costs.\216\ It would also ensure that vehicles produced
in the future would be equipped with the technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ 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 also believe that occupant detection is voluntarily used
in the front passenger seat to avoid having an audible seat belt
warning activate for an unoccupied seat.
\216\ Occupant detection systems are less challenging for the
front outboard passenger seat than for the rear seats because the
front outboard passenger seat is not typically subject to as many of
the potential complications to occupant detection (such as large
occupants spanning multiple seating positions). There may be
infrequent situations where occupant detection sensors may
incorrectly register the presence of an occupant when the seat is
unoccupied (e.g., mistaking cargo for an occupant). However, if
cargo placed on the seat causes a false occupant detection reading
and inadvertent activation of the front passenger seat belt warning
signal, the driver can readily discern it is a false reading and can
easily either place the cargo on the floor or fasten the seat belt
to disable the signal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose that the warning system consider this seating position
``occupied'' when an occupant who weighs at least 46.7 kg (103 lb) and
is at least 139.7 cm (55 in) tall is seated in the seat. These values
are the weight and height criteria currently specified in FMVSS No. 208
(S29.1(f)) for a person who is used as an alternative for the 5th
percentile adult female test dummy for compliance testing of advanced
air bag systems utilizing static suppression. These criteria are
consistent with the agency's recommendation on not transporting
children in the front seat, as well as Euro NCAP and the ECE R16 test
procedures. As described below, in connection with the proposed test
procedures (Section XII.B, Test Procedures), the agency would use
either a person or test dummy meeting these criteria.
B. Driver's Seat Belt Warning for Medium-Sized Buses
FMVSS No. 208 currently does not require buses with a GVWR greater
than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) and less than or equal to 4,536 kg (10,000
lb), or with a GVWR less than or equal to 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) and an
unloaded weight greater than 2,495 kg (5,500 lb), to be equipped with a
driver seat belt warning. We are proposing to amend FMVSS No. 208 to
close this loophole.
We are unaware of any such buses that do not already have a driver
seat belt warning that meets or surpasses the warning specified in
FMVSS No. 208. Accordingly, we believe this requirement would have
minimal, if any, costs or benefits. Requiring a driver seat belt
warning for these buses would ensure that they continue to have a
driver seat belt warning in the future. We invite comments on this
proposal and these assumptions.
C. Amendments to the Current Warning Signal Requirements
The current driver's seat belt warning requirements provide
manufacturers with two compliance options.\217\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ S7.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to modify these requirements in three main ways. First,
we propose a single compliance option that requires a start-of-trip
audio-visual warning that lasts until the seat belt at any occupied
front outboard seat is fastened. Second, we propose to require an
audio-visual change-of-status warning if a buckled belt at either of
these seating positions is unfastened in the middle of a trip. Third,
we propose some additional requirements for the audible warning related
to increasing the duration (for example, specifying a minimum 0.20 duty
cycle for the audible warning); however, we generally do not propose
requirements beyond what is currently in the standard related to other
aspects of the warning. These proposals are explained in more detail
below.
1. Increasing the Duration of the Audio-Visual Warning on Vehicle
Start-Up
The current eight-second limitation on the duration of the audible
warning was based on a statutory restriction, enacted in 1974, that
limited the length of the audible warning. MAP-21 repealed this
limitation. In light of MAP-21's repeal of the 8-second limitation, the
ANPRM sought comment on removing the corresponding limitation in FMVSS
No. 208.
Comments
Several commenters supported removing this restriction. One
commenter said that removing it would provide manufacturers with
greater regulatory certainty in deploying enhanced seat belt reminders,
although, the commenter stated, there needs to be an upper bound on the
duration of the required warning to ensure an objective and repeatable
test for the purposes of vehicle certification. The commenter
recommended maintaining the current 4- to 8-second warning thresholds
defined in table 4 of the FMVSS No. 208 laboratory test
procedures.\218\ Another commenter encouraged NHTSA to allow enhanced
seat belt reminder systems as a compliance option, possibly in lieu of
the currently required 4 to 8 second alarm. A commenter recommended
increasing the minimum duration for the audible warning to at least 90
seconds because the current audible signal duration upper limit is
ineffective for increasing seat belt use (and cited studies to support
this recommendation). Related to this, a commenter stated that a survey
of 2,000 drivers it commissioned showed that 70 percent favored a law
requiring seat belt reminders that continuously chime until the seat
belt is buckled, including rear seat passengers,\219\ and a commenter
noted a 2012 IIHS survey showing that most motorists supported enhanced
belt reminders that were ``more persistent and intense'' than what most
automakers offered at the time.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ The laboratory procedures are not part the regulatory
text. Published separately by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, they are intended to provide laboratories contracted by
NHTSA with additional guidelines for obtaining compliance test data.
\219\ Citing www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/underutilized-strategies-in-traffic-safety-results-of-a-nationally-representative-survey.aspx (last accessed Oct. 25, 2021).
\220\ Citing Highway Loss Data Inst., Ins. Inst. for Highway
Safety, Unbelted: Adults Admit They Often Skip Belts in Rear Seat,
52 STATUS REP. 1, 3 (Aug. 3, 2017), available at www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/pdf/52/5 (last accessed Oct. 25,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, a commenter recommended that NHTSA incorporate
[[Page 61709]]
the Euro NCAP enhanced seat belt reminder requirements in the U.S. NCAP
program if the agency wants to encourage enhanced seat belt reminders
that provide driver warnings beyond 8-seconds.
A commenter recommended that the front and rear requirements be
consistent with respect to the required duration of the audible
warning.
Agency Response
NHTSA has tentatively decided to increase the required duration for
the audio-visual warning provided on vehicle start-up to occupants of
the front outboard seats. The extremely short duration currently
required for the driver's seat belt warning--which originated in the
early 1970s--is outdated.\221\ It was premised on the since-repealed
eight-second statutory limitation on the audible warning duration,
then-existing low seat belt use rates, and consumer resistance to
enhanced warnings, and the related lack of such warnings in most
vehicles. These circumstances no longer hold. There are several
respects in which the current requirements are therefore not relevant
to today's market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ What is now the second compliance option (S7.3(a)(2)) was
added to the standard in 1974, and what is now the first compliance
option (S7.3(a)(1)) was added to the standard in 1991. See 39 FR
42692 (Dec. 6, 1974); 56 FR 3222 (Jan. 29, 1991). The second (and
original) compliance option requires an ``advisory'' visual warning
that is required to activate regardless of whether the seat belt is
buckled; the purpose for this, as NHTSA explained in 1974, was so
the ``reminder would remain effective even if the belt were disabled
to silence the audible warning.'' 39 FR 42692. (A later rulemaking
preamble also suggested that this would serve to remind other
occupants to buckle their belts. 56 FR 3222.) The 4- to 8-second
duration was selected ``because an irritating light can be easily
ignored or disabled, a visual signal can effectively serve only a
reminder function, and as such, it should be as simple as possible.
The NHTSA concludes that a 4- to 8-second reminder is best
calculated to accomplish the advisory function.'' 39 FR 42692. The
first compliance option was added in response to a petition for
rulemaking from General Motors to allow manufacturers to use a
safety belt warning system meeting the requirements for automatic
safety belt warning systems as an alternative to the warning system
that was specified for manual belt systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the existing requirements are significantly exceeded by the
warnings provided in current vehicles. Although NHTSA did not
previously have the authority to require a seat belt warning with an
audible signal lasting more than 8 seconds, starting in at least the
early 2000s, manufacturers voluntarily began providing enhanced audio-
visual warnings exceeding the FMVSS No. 208-minimum durations.\222\ In
order to get a better sense of the warning durations in currently sold
vehicles, NHTSA analyzed data on the seat belt warning durations for MY
2022 vehicle models provided to the agency by vehicle manufacturers for
NCAP; this data covers most vehicles offered for sale in the U.S. for
MY 2022 with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less.\223\ In total,
we received seat belt duration information on over 500 different
vehicle models.\224\ For each vehicle model, we looked at the warning
durations for the visual and audible warnings for the driver and front
outboard passengers seat belts, as well as the reported projected sales
for that model as a proportion of the total projected sales for all of
the vehicle models for which data was provided to NHTSA. We then
tabulated this data to determine how warning durations were distributed
across the new vehicle fleet. Specifically, we divided the range of
warning durations provided--ranging from six seconds to indefinitely
long--into intervals. For each interval, we summed up the projected
vehicle sales of all the vehicle models providing a warning with a
duration falling within that interval and divided that sum by the total
projected sales of all vehicle models. In general, we found that
roughly half of new light vehicles provide a visual warning that lasts
until the belt is fastened and an audible warning that lasts at least
two minutes (120 sec). In the discussion later, we discuss this data in
more detail. We also looked at the warning durations provided in new
vehicles tabulated by vehicle model instead of projected sales. The
results are generally the same, although there are some differences
compared to the vehicle sales analysis presented here. These data and
results are presented in appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ See Section III, Regulatory and Legislative History.
Similarly, an advisory warning for other seating positions is not
necessary because if the proposal is adopted the front outboard
passenger seat and the rear seats would have warnings specifically
for those seats.
\223\ See supra note 38.
\224\ Specifically, we received information on driver visual
warning duration for 599 models for; driver audible warning duration
for 599 models; front outboard passenger visual warning duration for
564 models; and front outboard passenger audible warning duration
for 558 models. The number of models differs because some models for
which a vehicle manufacturer submitted information did not include
complete information on the front outboard seat belt warnings and
some vehicles are not equipped with a front passenger seat belt
warning system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the driver visual warning, the majority of new
vehicles--over 60% as a percentage of total projected sales volume--
have a warning that lasts until the belt is fastened (Figure 3). The
remainder of the fleet is about equally divided between a 5-minute (300
second) visual warning and a visual warning lasting at least 1.5
minutes, but less than 2 minutes (90-119 seconds).\225\ Less than 2% of
the fleet has a warning lasting less than 1.5 minutes (90 sec). The
results for the front outboard passenger visual warning are essentially
the same as for the driver seat belt visual warning. See Figure 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ The 300-329 second interval consists of vehicles from just
one manufacturer, all of which have a 300-second reminder. The 90-
119 second interval includes a variety of different-make vehicle
models with different reminder durations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61710]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.002
With respect to the driver audible warning, all of the vehicles for
which NHTSA had data have an audible warning lasting longer than the
regulatory minimum of 4 seconds. A small number of vehicles (about 1%
as a share of total projected sales volume) have an audible warning
that last six or eight seconds.\226\ See Figure 5. Thus, a very small
proportion of the current vehicle fleet provide the very low-duration
audible warning currently required by FMVSS No. 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ For the driver audible warning, the 0-29 second interval
consists of a number of different vehicle makes, all of which
provide either a six or eight-second warning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, almost all new vehicles provide a driver audible warning
that significantly exceeds the current minimum. Overall, about 99% of
vehicles (by share of total projected sales volume) provide an audible
warning that lasts at least 30 seconds, and about 92% of vehicles
provide an audible warning that lasts at least 1.5 min (90+ sec). See
Figure 6. About half of the fleet (47%) provide an audible warning that
lasts two minutes or more (120+ s). Of the vehicles that provide an
audible warning with a finite length, the sales-weighted mean is 2.9
minutes (174 seconds) and the median is 1.7 minutes (100 seconds).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.003
[[Page 61711]]
Turning to the specific durations provided for the driver audible
seat belt warning, about half of new vehicles (45.5% as a share of
total projected sales volume) provide a warning that lasts 90-to-119 s
(1.5 s-1.98 s).\227\ See Figure 5. The longest-duration audible
warnings, provided by two vehicle manufacturers, last until the belt
has been buckled (accounting for about 8% of new vehicles sold). The
longest limited-duration audible warnings, lasting 5 and 8 minutes (300
and 480 seconds) are provided by two manufacturers (about 22% of new
vehicles).\228\ The other duration that is used in a non-trivial share
of new vehicles is from 4 min-4.5 min (240 s-269 s) (about 12% of new
vehicles).\229\ The corresponding analysis for the front outboard
passenger seat belt warning is very similar.\230\ See Figure 7 and
Figure 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ 90, 96, 100, and 108 seconds are the most used durations
in that range, but there are other durations too. 100 seconds is the
most used.
\228\ The only warning duration provided in the 300-329 sec
interval is 300 sec.
\229\ Specifically, these are all on vehicles from one
manufacturer, which provide an audible warning lasting 261 s.
\230\ The sale-weighted mean for the front passenger audible
warning is 176.57 and the median is 96.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.004
Second, we tentatively agree with IIHS that the current audible
signal duration upper limit of eight seconds is ineffective for
increasing seat belt use. From the vehicle survey data presented here,
it is clearly not a factor affecting vehicle design. As discussed
earlier in this preamble, front seat belt use rates have plateaued in
recent years so that about 10% of front-row occupants do not always use
a seat belt. Coupled with this, we note that approximately 83-89% of
nonusers are part-time nonusers who would be open to using a belt.\231\
Although research may not yet have firmly established which exact
system specifications are optimal,\232\ research by NHTSA and others
suggests that audio-visual warnings are more effective than visual
warnings alone and that longer duration warnings are more effective
than shorter duration warnings.\233\ NHTSA's earlier research estimated
that an enhanced reminder, on average, increased seat belt use three to
four percentage points compared to the basic reminder currently
required by FMVSS No. 208. IIHS in its comment cited recent research it
had conducted that evaluated the effectiveness of three different
driver's seat belt reminders. All of the reminders had a visual warning
that persisted until the seat belt was fastened but had audible
reminders of varying duration. The research found that, compared to a
short intermittent audible reminder (specifically, three intermittent
7-second audible reminders), an audible reminder with an indefinite
duration increased seat belt use by 34%, and an audible reminder with a
100-second duration increased seat belt use by 30%. However, we note
that more than 90% of MY 2022 vehicles already have audible warnings of
at least 90 seconds, but only about 8% have an indefinite reminder. For
more information on these effectiveness estimates, see Section XIV,
Costs and Benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\231\ It also might be the case that so-called ``hard-core''
nonusers, who comprise about 11-17% of nonusers, would use the belt
if the reminder were sufficiently annoying, although, for the
purposes of our effectiveness (and benefits) analysis, we
conservatively assume that the increase in belt use would be due
entirely to part-time nonusers.
\232\ DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, p. 1 (``Although improvements
in seat belt use rates appear to result from ESBRs, there is not yet
good evidence concerning what works best and why a given system may
influence occupant behavior.'').
\233\ See, e.g., DOT 2009 Belt warning Study, pp. 8, 46-49. See
also David G. Kidd & Jeremiah Singer, The effects of persistent
audible seat belt reminders and a speed-limiting interlock on the
seat belt use of drivers who do not always use a seat belt.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2019) (``Persistent enhanced
reminders with longer-lasting or more frequent auditory chimes have
been found to be more effective for increasing seat belt use.'')
(citing NHTSA research).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, we tentatively believe that contemporary consumers would
accept a longer warning. As we discussed earlier in this preamble, in
the early 1970s, NHTSA faced consumer backlash when it required long-
lasting seat belt warnings. However, consumer behavior and attitudes
have changed since then--seat belt use is more widespread, and
opposition to using a seat belt is much less prevalent than it was in
the 1970s. This is evidenced by MAP-21's repeal of the eight-second
audible seat belt warning limitation, and by the fact that almost all
light vehicles sold in the U.S. now feature relatively long duration
visual and audible warnings for the front outboard seats. Research by
NHTSA and others suggests that
[[Page 61712]]
consumers would potentially accept an appreciably longer duration
warning. As we noted above in connection with the rear seat belt
warning (Section X.F, Consumer Acceptance), NHTSA's research suggests
that part-time belt users are receptive to seat belt warning
technologies, including front seat belt warnings. Furthermore, more
recent research by others suggests support for more persistent
reminders. IIHS's research has found that, while public acceptance of
intense reminders was a concern, seat belt reminders that become more
intense or continue indefinitely would be acceptable to about half of
part-time belt users and around one-fifth of nonusers.\234\ Another
IIHS study found that, while its data was subject to some limitations,
``most drivers who transport front passengers wanted . . . reminders
that last indefinitely until the front passenger buckles up,''
``suggest[ing] that stronger front passenger reminders, such as those
meeting Euro NCAP's design requirements, may be acceptable to most
drivers who transport front passengers.'' \235\ We also note the
studies cited by NSC and CAS suggesting strong support for more
persistent--and even indefinitely long--reminders. At the same time, we
do acknowledge that while enhanced warnings are potentially more
effective, they are also more intrusive.\236\ They therefore present
potential consumer acceptance challenges that may reduce their
effectiveness.\237\ NHTSA's earlier research suggests that it may be
challenging to design a warning system with effective yet acceptable
characteristics,\238\ and that no clear consensus exists about which
warning system features are most acceptable.\239\ It also noted that
while it appears that a majority of the general public accepts seat
belt reminders, the data on public acceptance is somewhat limited and
anecdotal, and that resistance by a minority of the public could limit
overall public acceptability.\240\ However, based on the best data
available to us, we tentatively believe that consumers would accept an
audio-visual front seat belt reminder with a significantly longer
duration than the standard currently requires, including an indefinite
duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ Kidd, McCartt, & Oesch. Attitudes Towards Seat Belt Use
and In-Vehicle Technologies for Encouraging Belt Use. Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety. January 2013, pp. 1-3. The study over-
sampled part-time belt users and nonusers. But see p. 3 (``Requiring
all vehicles to have more intense enhanced reminders is a promising
way to increase belt use among part-time belt users, but public
acceptance still is a concern because the characteristics that make
reminders more effective also are the characteristics that make them
more annoying. It is not clear how intense a reminder needs to be to
increase belt use among the remaining part-time belt users and non-
users and what trade-off in annoyance is acceptable.'') (citation
omitted).
\235\ Kidd, D.G. and McCartt, A.T. 2013. Drivers' attitudes
toward front or rear child passenger belt use and seat belt
reminders at these seating positions. Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, January 2013. But see id. at p. 13 (``Long-lasting,
auditory front passenger reminders might not be acceptable to these
drivers, so it is important to find ways to reduce the potential
annoyance of front passenger reminders without compromising their
effectiveness.'').
\236\ DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, supra n.36, p. 39 (drivers);
p. 45 (passengers).
\237\ See, e.g., DOT 2009 Seat Belt Study at 54, 58 (while
research to date on front seat systems suggests that features such
as a longer-lasting flashing visual warning might be more effective
than a basic system, some warnings that may be more effective could
also be more annoying to occupants).
\238\ See DOT 2009 Seat Belt Study at 60.
\239\ DOT 2009 Belt Warning Study, p. 8; Schroeder & Wilbur,
supra, p. 33.
\240\ 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, p. 41-42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, the technology necessary to implement such an enhanced
warning is already standard equipment on almost all light vehicles. An
enhanced warning that activates for an unoccupied seat could be a
nuisance that either desensitizes the occupants to the warning, or
leads them to circumvent or defeat the warning. Enhanced warnings
therefore generally need to work in conjunction with an occupant
detection system. This makes light vehicle front outboard seats well-
suited for enhanced warnings, because almost all front outboard seats
are already equipped with occupant classifications systems in order to
comply with the advanced air bag requirements. Seat belt warnings for
the front outboard seats are therefore capable of being activated only
when an unbelted occupant is present, which greatly diminishes the risk
of false warnings. Accordingly, increasing the reminder duration would
entail minimal costs.
Finally, a longer-duration is consistent with seat belt warning
durations required or encouraged in other markets and ratings programs.
ECE R16 requires that for the front seats there be a 30 second visual
warning when the front seat belts are not fastened and the ignition is
activated. It also requires an audio-visual warning that must activate
for at least 30 seconds if the seat belt remains unfastened and
specific onset criteria are met (e.g., distance traveled, speed, etc.).
To prevent unnecessary signals, both ECE R16 and Euro NCAP require that
the system be capable of detecting whether the front passenger seat is
occupied. The Euro NCAP assessment protocol requires a visual signal
that remains active until the seat belt is fastened, and a two-stage
audible signal; the initial audible signal must not exceed 30 seconds
and the final audible signal must be at least 90 seconds. Similar to
Euro NCAP, under the IIHS seat belt reminder system ratings protocol,
the primary audible reminder signal for the front outboard seats must
be at least 90 seconds in total duration in order to obtain an
``acceptable'' or ``good'' rating. Although ECE R16 does not require an
indefinite reminder, such a reminder would comply with that standard,
as they do not contain a maximum length.
We are therefore proposing to increase the minimum duration of the
audio-visual warning for the front outboard seat belts on vehicle
start-up. In developing this proposal, we considered a range of
alternative warning durations. At the upper end of the range is an
indefinite reminder--a reminder that remains activated until the
occupant fastens the seat belt. Short of this are reminders that have
relatively long durations, but do not last indefinitely. Because there
is a large range of durations that could be selected, in order to help
structure the proposal (and aid comment) we considered the following
``buckets'' of reminder durations, based on the front audible warning
durations provided in MY 2022 light vehicles offered for sale in the
U.S. as well as the durations specified in ECE R16, Euro NCAP, and the
IIHS ratings protocol:
Less than thirty seconds (less than required in Europe and
provided in only about 1% of new vehicles offered for sale in the U.S.
in MY 2022);
30 seconds up to but not including 90 seconds (1.5
minutes) (consistent with ECE R16, and provided in about 8% of MY 2022
vehicles in the U.S.);
90 seconds (1.5 minutes) up to but not including 2 minutes
(consistent with Euro NCAP, and provided in about 46% of MY 2022
vehicles in the U.S.);
2 minutes (120 sec) up to (and including) 5 minutes (300
seconds) (the approximate mid-range of the audible warning durations
provided in MY 2022 vehicles in the U.S.);
Greater than 5 minutes (300 sec) but not indefinite (which
includes the longest limited-duration audible warning, 8 minutes (480
sec) (provided in about 8% of new vehicles in the U.S.); and
Indefinite duration (currently adopted by two vehicle
manufacturers, accounting for about 8% of new vehicles in the U.S.).
[[Page 61713]]
We have tentatively decided to propose requiring an audio-visual
reminder that lasts until the belts are fastened at any occupied front
outboard seating position, in light of the increase in roadway
fatalities and the lack of improvement of front seat belt use rates. We
also tentatively believe this is supported by the favorable ratio of
part-time to hard-core seat belt nonusers, surveys indicating a
significant level of acceptance for enhanced seat belt warnings, and
the fact that a non-trivial share of currently sold vehicles have an
indefinite-duration reminder. These vehicles incorporating the
indefinite warning support the practicability of the proposal.
Additionally, the small percentage of market penetration provides the
greatest opportunity for potential benefit (see section XIII). We also
believe that other warning signal characteristics--such as duty cycle,
frequency, volume, or timbre--can be adjusted to balance effectiveness
and consumer acceptance; manufacturers would have the flexibility to
adjust these or other aspects of the warning, within certain limits, as
discussed further below. We do not agree with Global that an upper
bound on the warning duration is necessary for objectivity. The warning
simply would be required to remain active as long as the belt were
unfastened at an occupied seat; NHTSA's compliance test would
necessarily have to stop at some point, but NHTSA could make the test
time as long as it wanted and manufacturers would have to certify that
the warning would be indefinite.
NHTSA seeks comment on this proposal. If opposed to an indefinite
warning, what data support limiting its duration? If NHTSA were to
instead require an enhanced but limited-duration warning, how long
should the warning be? We also seek comment from manufacturers (and
others) about the basis for the warning durations provided in current
vehicles, particularly the warnings that exceed the Euro NCAP duration
(90 sec); for example, the basis for the 5-minute warning, or the 8-
minute warning, or the indefinite warning. We also seek comment on the
effectiveness and consumer acceptance of the proposed and alternative
durations. One reason a shorter duration could be more effective is
that some seat belt nonusers might be more likely to habitually
circumvent an indefinite-duration warning as opposed to a limited-
duration warning. However, such an assumption presupposes there is some
limited duration for which a nonuser would be less likely to
circumvent. What would such a duration be, and would it have a reduced
effectiveness over a longer or indefinite limit such that the benefit
from reduced circumvention was offset by a lower effectiveness? We also
seek any additional data on effectiveness or acceptance, or any
relevant studies that NHTSA has not identified in the preamble or the
PRIA.
We also seek comment on whether the required durations for the
visual and audible components of the warning should be identical or
different (for example, requiring an indefinitely long visual warning
and an audible warning that is of a relatively long, but limited,
duration)? Similarly, should the warning durations for the driver and
passenger differ or be identical? We also recognize that duration is
not the only warning signal characteristic that might increase
effectiveness (and affect acceptance); we seek comment on whether NHTSA
should set minimum performance requirements for other aspects of the
warning (e.g., volume of audible warning and frequency of visual
flashing warning and intermittent audible warning) in lieu of or in
addition to an increase in the warning duration, and the empirical
support for such a choice. We discuss proposed limits and seek comment
on certain parameters related to the audible warning below.
2. Requiring an Audio-Visual Change-of-Status Warning
NHTSA also proposes to require an audio-visual warning whenever the
driver or front outboard passenger seat belt is unfastened during a
trip. Although the driver may be aware that the front outboard
passenger seat belt has been unfastened, we believe a change-of-status
warning may encourage or remind front outboard passengers to refasten
their seat belt. We propose an audio-visual warning consisting of a
continuous or flashing visual warning of icons or text visible to the
driver and any front outboard passenger and a continuous or
intermittent audible signal lasting until the seat belt is refastened.
The warning would be required to activate when the vehicle's ignition
switch is in the ``on'' or ``start'' position, the vehicle's
transmission selector is in a forward or reverse gear, and the driver
and or front outboard passenger seat belt status changes from in use to
not in use. However, similar to the Euro NCAP protocol requirements, if
the change-of-status occurs and a front door on the same side of the
vehicle as the belt triggering the warning is open, the system can
consider that the start of a new trip. The proposed indefinite duration
is longer than the minimum 30-second duration proposed for the rear
seat belt change-of-status warning. We tentatively believe a longer
duration for the front seat belt warning is justified because it does
not pose the same potential for driver distraction as it does for the
rear seat belt warning. Additionally, if the change-of-status is
finite, this would essentially provide a method of circumventing the
indefinite startup warning, i.e., an occupant could be buckled at
startup, but then unbuckle during the trip and only receive a fixed
duration warning.
ECE R16 essentially requires the same change-of-status warning
requirements for the front and rear seats (the duration is generally
about 30 seconds unless the belt is fastened sooner), so the reader is
referred to the discussion of the change-of-status warning in
connection with the rear seat belt warning proposal (Section X.C.2).
Euro NCAP specifies that the change-of-status warning must essentially
meet the requirements of the initial warning, but those requirements
are different for the front and rear seats. Again, for the front seats,
Euro NCAP specifies that for the initial warning a visual signal shall
remain active until the seat belt is fastened, and specifies a two-
stage audible signal; the initial audible signal must not exceed 30
seconds and the final audible signal must be at least 90 seconds.
We seek comment on the proposed change-of-status warning. What
types of change-of-status warnings are vehicle manufacturers currently
using for the front and rear seats (e.g., audio-visual, duration,
etc.)? NHTSA is also considering, as it is for the start-of-trip
warning, a limited-duration change-of-status warning. Would a limited-
duration change-of-status warning be preferable? And should it be
identical to the start-of-trip warning, or is there a reason to require
different warnings (with respect to any warning signal characteristic,
but especially duration)? How are vehicle manufacturers currently
handling change-of-status events that occur when the vehicle is stopped
or at low vehicle speeds, without a door being opened? Similarly, how
are change-of-status events handled when passengers exit the vehicle
without the vehicle being in the park gear?
3. Audible Warning Characteristics
If the proposed indefinite audible warning were adopted,
manufacturers would almost certainly design audible warnings that were
not continuous but instead cycled, in order to avoid the excessive
annoyance of a fully continuous, long-lasting audible
[[Page 61714]]
warning and to fine-tune annoyance and effectiveness. In light of this,
NHTSA believes that it is necessary to more fully specify the audible
warning characteristics than was necessary for a brief audible warning
to ensure that the warnings have at least a minimum level of
persistence.
We therefore propose to define a set of terms objectively
describing the audible warning: warning cycle, chime frequency, and
duty cycle:
A warning cycle for an intermittent audible warning
consists of period(s) when the warning is active at the chime frequency
or continuously, and inactive period(s). A warning cycle begins with an
active period and is 30 seconds in duration.
Chime frequency means the repetition rate for an
intermittent audible warning when the warning is active.
Duty cycle means the total amount of time an intermittent
audible warning is active during a warning cycle at the chime frequency
or continuously, divided by the total warning cycle duration (30
seconds).
When an audible warning is emitting sound, it may do so
continuously or intermittently. We believe if the chime frequency of
the warning is too low, the warning may become less effective. In a
2009 agency study that focused on analyzing characteristics of optimal
reminder systems, we found that, among the reminder systems analyzed,
the one with the highest belt use rate had the longest average single-
cycle duration and the highest maximum sound frequency.\241\ However,
the agency wishes to provide ample design latitude with respect to the
chime frequency. In a 2007 agency-funded study on enhanced seat belt
reminder features, the ``slow chime'' warning evaluated had a 0.83 Hz
frequency.\242\ We are proposing a minimum frequency of 0.5 Hz. The
warning will be considered active when the audible warning is emitting
a continuous sound or a sound at a 0.5 Hz frequency or higher. We seek
comment on the proposed specification for minimum chime frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\ Mark Freedman et al., Effectiveness and Acceptance of
Enhanced Seat Belt Reminder Systems: Characteristics of Optimal
Reminder Systems Final Report. DOT HS 811 097.
\242\ DOT HS 810 848; Lerner, N; Singer, L; Huey, R; Jenness, J;
``Acceptability and Potential Effectiveness of Enhanced Seat Belt
Reminders System Features,'' (2007)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another important characteristic for an indefinite warning is the
duty cycle. The duty cycle is the ratio of the total time when the
audible warning is active divided by the total warning cycle time. A
1.0 or 100-percent duty cycle for a 30-second warning cycle means that
the warning is active throughout the entire 30 seconds. In order for
the duty cycle specification to be meaningful, the warning cycle time
must be specified. We are proposing that the warning cycle be fixed at
30 seconds. Therefore, because we are proposing that the audio-visual
warning continue until an unfastened seat belt at an occupied seat is
buckled, the audible warning will be composed of a continuous series of
30-second warning cycles that continues until the belt is buckled.
We have tentatively decided to require a minimum duty cycle of 0.20
or 20 percent (i.e., 6 seconds for each 30-second warning cycle). We
have tentatively selected this because we are aware of research data
that suggests that a 20 percent duty cycle is effective but are not
aware of data that a lower duty cycle would be sufficiently effective.
In 2012, IIHS published a study examining the effects of duty cycle and
duration on seat belt reminder effectiveness and annoyance.\243\ The
study examined four duty cycle conditions: 100, 50, and 20 percent, and
a basic reminder (as ratios 1.0, 0.5 and 0.2). The warning cycles were
consecutive 30 intervals. In the 100 percent duty cycle condition, the
flashing icon and 1 Hz frequency chime were present for the entire 30-
second reminder cycle. In the 50 percent duty cycle condition, the
flashing icon and 1 Hz frequency chime were present for the first 15
seconds of the reminder cycle, and a continuously illuminated icon was
present for the final 15 seconds. In the 20 percent duty cycle
condition, the flashing icon and 1 Hz frequency chime were present for
the first 6 seconds of the reminder cycle followed by a continuously
illuminated icon for the remaining 24 seconds. In the basic reminder
system condition, the flashing icon and chime were present for the
first 6 seconds of the first reminder cycle only, and then icon was
continuously illuminated for the remainder of the warning. In terms of
effectiveness, the 20 percent duty cycle reminder was rated no less
effective than the 100 percent duty cycle reminder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ Kidd, D.G. (2012). Response of part-time belt users to
enhanced seat belt reminder systems of different duty cycles and
duration. Transportation Research Part F, 15, 525-534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The chime frequency and duty cycle can also be adjusted to optimize
the warning. As chime frequencies and/or duty cycle increase,
effectiveness generally (though not necessarily) increases, and
annoyance generally increases. Given the proposed indefinite warning
duration for the front seats, vehicle manufacturers would almost
certainly design warnings with duty cycles of less than 100 percent in
order to address consumer acceptance issues. For instance, the 2012
IIHS study found that a decrease in the duty cycle could reduce
annoyance while not appreciably reducing effectiveness. The enhanced
reminders, however, were not equally annoying. Forty percent of
participants in the 1.0 duty cycle reminder condition and 40 percent of
participants in the 0.5 duty cycle reminder condition agreed or
strongly agreed that the reminder distracted them while they were
driving. However, only 25 percent of participants in the 0.2 duty cycle
reminder condition indicated the reminder distracted them.
Manufacturers can also balance the duty cycle against the chime
frequency.
These proposed specifications differ somewhat from Euro NCAP and
ECE R16. Rather than directly specifying a duty cycle, Euro NCAP
specifies that for the front seats the audible signal must not have
gaps greater than 10 seconds, and that gaps longer than 3 seconds would
not count toward the warning's total duration. ECE R16 also does not
count warning gaps longer than 3 seconds toward the required minimum
warning duration requirement. We are not specifying a limit on the
maximum duration of audible gaps for the purposes of determining the
warning's total duration since we are not proposing a minimum warning
duration requirement. The 10 second limit Euro NCAP specifies, in
addition to its specification of a 3 second gap limit toward the
calculation of the warning's total duration, would not be sufficient to
ensure a 0.20 duty cycle warning (that is supported by the IIHS
research). For instance, a system with a warning cycle that is 11
seconds long and a 10 second gap would result in a duty cycle of 0.09
which would likely not be as effective as a system meeting our proposed
requirements.
We seek comment on our proposed method of specifying the audible
warning duty cycle and the limits proposed.
4. Visual Warning Characteristics
We are retaining the existing requirements with respect to some
aspects of the visual warning and modifying them in other respects.
We are retaining the current requirements that the warning be
continuous or intermittent (flashing) and must display either the
identifying symbol or the words (``Fasten Belts'' or ``Fasten Seat
belts'') specified in table 2 of FMVSS No. 101. We have tentatively
decided not to specify minimum requirements for the duty cycle or flash
[[Page 61715]]
rates analogous to what we are proposing for the audible warning; we
tentatively believe that manufacturers will design the visual warning
features in conjunction with and in a way that complements the audible
warning characteristics. We have decided to retain the requirement for
the symbols or text specified in FMVSS No. 101 because these visual
warning have been in place for decades and we believe that consumers
are accustomed to them. Removing the requirement may have unintended
negative effects if drivers and front passengers are not accustomed to
new visual warnings or do not find the new visual warnings as
effective. This means that if a manufacturer chose to use a pictogram
format for the rear seat belt warning, it could include the front seat
belts in this pictogram, but it would also have to provide the warnings
specified in FMVSS No. 101, table 2. We believe manufactures are
already doing this. We seek comment on all of these tentative
decisions.
We are also proposing requirements with respect to telltale
visibility. We propose requiring that if there is a driver's designated
seating position, the visual warning for the driver's seat belt must be
visible from the driver's seat and the visual warning for the front
outboard passenger seat belt must be visible from the driver's seat and
the front outboard passenger seat. (For the case where there is not a
driver's designated seating position (which is the case with an ADS-
equipped vehicle without any manual driving controls), see Section
XII.C.). We are proposing to require that the visual warning be visible
to both the driver and any front outboard passenger because NHTSA's
study on front seat belt warning systems suggests that visual warnings
for front outboard passenger seat belts are more effective when they
are visible to the passenger as well as the driver.\244\ Euro NCAP
similarly recommends that the visual warning be visible to the front
passenger.\245\ We believe it would be practicable for manufacturers to
comply with this requirement; for example, the warning could be located
in the center console display (which might be a salient place to
present visual displays, both because of its location and because it
may allow larger size icons or text).\246\ Some manufacturers already
provide a passenger seat belt warning in close proximity to the
passenger air bag status indicator, which is visible to both the driver
and front passenger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\244\ See DOT 2009 Seat Belt Study at 67-68.
\245\ Section 3.7.5.5.
\246\ DOT 2009 Seat Belt Study at 67-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have tentatively decided not to specify more detailed criteria
for the location or visibility of the telltale as, for example, are
provided in S19.2.2 for the passenger air bag telltale. A visual
warning for the driver's seat belt has been required since the early
1970s and we are not aware of any issues with the visibility of that
telltale, so we tentatively believe this is unnecessary.
5. Other Warning Signal Features and Criteria
We have tentatively decided not to specify requirements or criteria
for other aspects of the front outboard seat belt warnings.
Warning activation criteria. Global and Honda commented that NHTSA
should consider updates to the driver seat belt reminder requirements
to include additional trigger thresholds beyond the vehicle ignition
switch being moved to the ``on'' or ``start'' position. The commenters
believed advances in vehicle sensor technology enable warnings to be
provided for a range of conditions, such as when the vehicle speed
reaches a certain limit, or when the transmission is moved from the
park position. One commenter suggested that the front and rear warning
requirements be consistent in this respect.
Euro NCAP and ECE R16 specify additional trigger requirements above
and beyond the ignition being engaged and a seat belt not fastened for
some aspects of the front seat belt warnings. Euro NCAP specifies
trigger criteria related to factors such as speed, distance traveled,
and time elapsed for the change-of-status warning, the audible warning
at the start of a trip, and the final (loud and clear) warning. ECE R16
specifies, for both the start of trip warning and the change-of-status
warning, additional activation criteria for the second-level warning
related to vehicle speed, distance traveled, and time elapsed.
We have tentatively decided not to specify trigger criteria other
than the criteria proposed above. The reasons for doing so mirror the
reasons given in the analogous discussions in the rear seat belt
warning discussion. See Section X.C.1.b (start-of-trip warning) and
Section X.C.2 (change-of-status warning).
Warning duration criteria. Euro NCAP and ECE R16 also specify
additional duration criteria other than a minimum time and the seat
belt becoming fastened. Euro NCAP specifies, for the audible warning
duration (for both the start-of-trip and change-of-status warnings)
criteria related to vehicle speed, door/belt status, running time, and
distance traveled.\247\ ECE R16 specifies, for the second-level audio-
visual warning duration for the front seat belts an additional
criterion related to vehicle speed.\248\ We have tentatively decided
not to include more complex criteria. The reasons for this mirror the
reasons given for the rear seat belt change-of-status warning duration
in Section X.C.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\ Section 3.4.1.6.
\248\ Section 8.4.2.4.3 (warning can cease if vehicle is not
moving forward at least 10 km/h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warning circumvention, acknowledgment and deactivation. We have
tentatively decided not to propose features to harden the system
against circumvention (such as a sequential logic system which would
evaluate whether the belt was fastened prior to an occupant sitting in
the seat or sensors that can determine seat belts fastened behind an
occupant's back) because such features would increase the cost and
complexity of the systems. Neither ECE R16 nor Euro NCAP require such
features.
We have also tentatively decided not to allow features which would
permit the driver to acknowledge the warning and cancel it prior to the
required duration or to deactivate the warning for an entire trip or
for a specified time period (thus preventing it from activating in the
first place). ECE R16 allows both short-term and long-term deactivation
of the audible warning (with a variety of restrictions, such as that it
be more difficult to effectuate a short-term deactivation than to
buckle the belt). Euro NCAP does not provide any specifications for
deactivation or acknowledgement of the warnings for the front seats; it
only allows acknowledgement of warnings for rear seats, except for
change-of-status warnings. We seek comment on this. Should a final rule
incorporate either or both of these features? Would this unacceptably
impact the effectiveness of the warning and essentially negate its
indefinite duration? Or could it facilitate acceptance and thus either
not impact effectiveness or even have a positive impact on
effectiveness, to the extent it might make it less likely that the
occupant habitually completely circumvents the system? Or should
cancelation or deactivation be allowed for the passenger seat belt
audible warning but not the driver seat belt warning, in order to
mitigate the potential for false positives (due to cargo on the seat
that the occupant detection system classifies as a person, etc.)? We
note that, since we are not proposing hardening requirements, the
proposal would not preclude designs that do not
[[Page 61716]]
activate a passenger seat belt warning if the seat belt is fastened and
no one is in the seat. Thus, such nuisance warnings due to cargo could
be prevented by buckling the seat belt or simply placing the cargo
somewhere else.
Should the final rule allow for permanent or short-term
deactivation of front seat audible warnings when the vehicle is
traveling below a certain speed? This might allow for situations such
as someone needing to drive to a mailbox on a road located on private
property or perhaps driving in a parking lot. Below what speed could
such a deactivation be implemented without potential loss of benefits?
Would such an allowance cause confusion and be counterproductive to the
goal of the proposal?
XII. Other Issues
A. Automatic Belts
This proposal applies to automatic belts. Automatic belts are belts
that secure without any action by the occupant. The agency is not aware
of any currently produced vehicles that would be affected by the
proposed requirements that have automatic belts. We propose that a
seating position with an automatic belt would have to meet the same
seat belt warning requirements that apply to manual belts. We are not
including provisions in the proposed test procedures specific to
automatic seat belt systems because we believe the seat belt use
definitions provide sufficient guidance. We seek comments on this
issue.
B. Test Procedures
This NPRM includes procedures for how the agency would test the
front outboard passenger and rear seat belt warning systems for
compliance with the proposed requirements.
We note that ECE R16 (in Annex 18) sets out some limited test
procedures. With respect to the front passenger belt warning, it sets
out procedures for testing the warning when the seat belt is unbuckled
at the onset of a trip and procedures for testing the change-of-status
warning. For the rear seat belt warning system, it has procedures for
testing the change-of-status warning. In Europe and other countries
around the world, compliance with safety standards is based on type
approval. Type approval is the confirmation that production samples of
a design will meet specified performance standards. For type approval,
manufacturers submit product specifications to governmental
authorities, which then require third party approval testing,
certification, and a production conformity assessment by an independent
body. Test procedures in FMVSS, on the other hand, are more extensive
and detailed, because an FMVSS must be objective, so that manufacturers
can self-certify that their vehicles are in compliance.
The proposed test procedures in this NPRM specify that NHTSA could
test any system under any combination of seat occupancy or seat belt
use status. The test procedures also specify how the agency would test
a seat belt warning system with a designated seating position that is
occupied.
In order to test a seat belt warning system with a front seating
position that is occupied, the agency would use either any
anthropomorphic test device specified in part 572 or a person meeting
or exceeding the proposed weight and height criteria (at least 46.7 kg
and 139.7 cm, respectively, corresponding to the 5th percentile adult
female test dummy specified in part 572). The human beings or test
dummies used would be seated, the seat belt use and ignition conditions
would be applied, and the required signals must operate (that is,
either activate or not activate) accordingly. For example, if the
agency placed the appropriate test dummies in both front outboard
seating positions and fastened both outboard seat belts so that the
seat belts were in use, the front seat belt warning system would not be
permitted to activate the audible or visual signals under the current
first compliance option and could only activate the visual signal under
the current second compliance option.\249\ The test could be conducted
with the seat and adjustable belt anchorages in any position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For rear warning systems that utilize occupant detection (either
negative-only or full-status systems), the agency would use either a
person or any anthropomorphic test device specified in part 572 that
meets the proposed weight and height criteria (at least 21 kg and 114
cm, respectively).\250\ The agency would perform the test with the seat
in any position, the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design
riding position, and any adjustable anchorages in any position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ For anthropomorphic test devices, this would include the
50th percentile male, 5th percentile female, and the 6-year-old and
10-year-old child dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek comment on all aspects of the test procedures. We also seek
comment on whether the R16 Annex 18 test procedures affect how the
requirements in R16 should be interpreted, and whether any deviations
between the proposed test procedures and the Annex 18 test procedures
are undesirable. We also seek comment on whether the proposed
procedures are sufficiently detailed and objective.
C. Considerations for Automated Driving Systems
The ANPRM did not address considerations related to automated
driving systems (ADSs).
Comments
A commenter recommended avoiding any additional references to the
``driver'' in FMVSS No. 208 to avoid introducing further barriers to
the deployment of automated driving systems.
Agency Response
NHTSA is actively addressing how the FMVSS might be revised to take
vehicles with different types of ADSs into account. On March 30, 2022,
NHTSA published a final rule updating the occupant protection standards
(200-series FMVSS) to account for ADS-equipped vehicles, particularly
those without driving controls.\251\ The final rule amended the 200-
series FMVSS to account for future vehicles that do not have the
traditional manual controls associated with a human driver because they
are equipped with ADSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ 87 FR 18560 (Mar. 30, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One aspect of this NPRM is a requirement specifically tailored to
an ADS-equipped vehicle without a driver DSP. For the amendment to the
driver's seat belt warning, we are proposing that the front passenger
warning apply to ``any'' front outboard passenger. The addition of the
term ``any'' makes it clear that, in some vehicles, there may be more
than one front outboard passenger seating position. This would be the
situation of an ADS-equipped vehicle that has no manually operated
driving controls. The agency views this as a means for maintaining the
same level of occupant protection in ADS-equipped vehicles that exists
in conventional vehicles, i.e., both will be required to have seat belt
warnings in both outboard seating positions. We note that in a dual
mode vehicle,\252\ the
[[Page 61717]]
left front seat is still by definition a driver's seat, regardless of
the operational status of the vehicle, so a provision to just have a
warning for the driver and right outboard passenger would be sufficient
to assure that all front seat occupants receive a warning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\252\ An [ADS-Equipped] Dual-Mode Vehicle is defined as ``[a]
type of ADS-equipped vehicle designed for both driverless operation
and operation by a conventional driver for complete trips.'' SAE
J3016_201806 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving
Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also proposing that if there are multiple front outboard
passenger seats in an ADS-equipped vehicle without manual driving
controls, then both front outboard seat belt warnings and change-of-
status warnings must be visible to both front outboard passengers. The
rationale for this is as follows. Although an ADS-equipped vehicle
without manually operated controls by definition does not have a
driver, it is reasonable to assume that one of the front outboard
passengers may be performing the management role for the duration of a
trip, such as might be the case of a parent in a vehicle with children
under their care. In such a situation, the manager of the trip may be
seated in either front outboard seat. Thus, to be most beneficial, the
visual warning must be seen by an occupant choosing to sit in either
front outboard seat. Additionally, if the agency restricted the warning
visibility to just the right outboard passenger and not ``any''
outboard passenger, in an ADS-equipped vehicle with no driving controls
and a lone vehicle occupant in the left front seat, that occupant would
not receive a seat belt use warning.
The 2022 ADS final rule also addressed situations where an ADS-
equipped vehicle without manual driving controls has one or no outboard
seats in the front row (e.g., an ADS-equipped vehicle with only two
seats in the front row, one or both of which would be classified as
inboard passenger seating positions under 571.3) and requires seat belt
warnings for certain inboard seats in such vehicles. We are proposing
that these front inboard passenger seats have the same seat belt
warnings as front outboard seats.
The agency acknowledges that the proposal does not address the
influence of ADS-equipped vehicles on the visibility of the rear seat
belt warning. As proposed, the rear seat belt warning is only required
to be visible from the driver's seat. As previously discussed, there
may be no driver's DSP in an ADS-equipped vehicle. Thus, no vehicle
occupant will be required to see the rear seat belt warning. NHTSA
acknowledges the inadequacy of this situation and we believe there are
many potential solutions. For example, it could be required that for a
vehicle without manually operated driving controls, any front seat
occupant receive the rear seat belt warning. Another approach would be
to require that in such vehicles, all seating positions be apprised of
the seat belt use in all other DSPs in the vehicle. The agency has
determined that it is not prepared to propose a solution for the
visibility of rear seat belt warnings for ADS-equipped vehicles and
that it is beyond the scope of this proposed rule. As we stated in the
March 30, 2022 final rule, the agency plans future agency work related
to telltales and indicators for ADS-equipped vehicles.
XIII. Regulatory Alternatives
NHTSA has considered alternatives to the proposal. In the preceding
sections of this document, we have discussed various alternatives for
different aspects of the proposed requirements. In this section we
address five major alternatives that we considered: ECE R16 and Euro
NCAP; occupant detection and enhanced warning signals for the rear seat
belt warning; non-regulatory alternatives; requiring a warning for the
front center seat; and requiring an audio-visual seat belt warning for
the front outboard seating positions with a duration not less than 90
seconds. For three of these alternatives (rear-seat occupant detection,
front center seat, and 90-second front warning), we also quantified the
costs and benefits (see Section XIV).
A. ECE R16 and Euro NCAP
The ANPRM sought comment on the extent to which any requirements
should be based upon or differ from other regulatory requirements (such
as ECE requirements) or consumer information programs such as Euro
NCAP.\253\ As discussed in more detail in the regulatory analyses
section below, Executive Order 13609 provides that International
regulatory cooperation can reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements. Similarly, Sec. 24211 of the
Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act \254\ instructs DOT to
harmonize the FMVSS with global regulations to the maximum extent
practicable (for example, to the extent that harmonization would be
consistent with the Safety Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ The discussion in this preamble focuses on Euro NCAP and
R16. NCAP programs in other regions are largely similar to Euro NCAP
or R16, so our analysis of these requirements will adequately cover
the requirements of the NCAP programs in other regions.
\254\ H.R. 3684 (117th Congress) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments \255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\255\ The ANPRM sought comment on this in the context of various
aspects of the rear seat belt warning, and this is what the comments
likely concerned, but the discussion in the agency response below
also includes the front seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters recommended harmonizing with R16.\256\ Two
commenters stated that almost all automakers have already developed
systems to conform to the R16 requirements, and that disharmonization
would increase costs without any benefits. Two commenters said that
harmonization would accelerate introduction of seat belt reminders. A
commenter said that R16 represents a ``sweet spot'' between safety
benefits, consumer acceptance, harmonization, and compliance costs. The
commenter also said that the benefits from harmonization can be
substantial, such as flexibility to innovate, cost minimization, and
efficiency of global research, development, and production processes; a
non-harmonized approach could also necessitate system redesign for the
United States market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ Some comments specifically identified version R16-07. As
noted earlier, the ECE has subsequently revised that regulation. The
current version is Revision 10. We assume commenters favoring
harmonization intended that we harmonize with the most current
version of R16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters recommended harmonizing with NCAP programs in other
regions, such as Euro NCAP. For example, a commenter supported
harmonization with Euro NCAP; another supported harmonization with Euro
NCAP (or, if not that, then with R16), and a third commenter suggested
using other NCAP programs as a model when empirical data is lacking. A
commenter recommended harmonization with Euro NCAP and IIHS's
assessment protocol.
A few commenters, while acknowledging that harmonization is
generally desirable, commented that the proposed rule should not
harmonize at the expense of safety/effectiveness. Commenters said that
the requirements should be evidence-based.
Agency Response
In developing this proposal, our intent was to harmonize with ECE
R16 and Euro NCAP as much as possible but deviate where we believed it
was justified with respect to the Safety Act criteria (need for safety,
objectivity, practicability). The tentative reasons for following or
deviating in any of these respects are explained in detail in the
relevant section of the preamble. In general, we believe that although
the proposal deviates from R16 in some
[[Page 61718]]
ways, the two are not incompatible, so that it is possible to design a
rear reminder system that complies with the proposed requirements and
is compatible with R16.
On December 2021, IIHS released its Seat Belt Reminder System Test
and Rating protocol.\257\ It sets out general requirements for the seat
belt reminder visual and audible signals for front outboard and rear
seating positions. It does not put much emphasis on the visual warning
for front-outboard seating positions other than specifying that a
visual signal needs to be displayed in the instrument panel, overhead
panel, or center console, indicating an unfastened belt. On the other
hand, for the audible warning there are requirements for when it must
begin if the seat belt is unfastened at ignition and for change-of-
status, and when it can cease (when the seat belt is unfastened,
vehicle is no longer in motion, or seat is no longer occupied). It also
has sound pressure level and frequency requirements for the audible
warning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ https://www.iihs.org/media/f15e5be9-ac62-4ea6-a88d-7511105bfff5/H3hGKQ/Ratings/Protocols/current/Seat%20Belt%20Reminder%20Test%20Protocol.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the rear seats, it specifies that the visual signal must
activate within 10 seconds of the ignition being turned on, that the
signal must indicate whether the seat belt at each rear seating
position is fastened or unfastened, and that it must last at least 60
seconds. It does not require a visual signal if the seat belts at all
occupied rear seats are fastened or if no rear occupants are present.
It allows the visual signal to be cancelled by the driver. For a seat
belt change-of-status in the rear seats when the vehicle is in motion,
it requires an audible and visual signal that lasts at least 30
seconds. It further specifies that the audible and visual signal can
stop when seat belts at the occupied rear seats are fastened, the
vehicle is no longer in motion, or the seats are no longer occupied.
For the front seats, under the IIHS ratings protocol, the primary
audible reminder signal for the front outboard seats must be at least
90 seconds in total duration in order to obtain an ``acceptable'' or
``good'' rating.
Unlike Euro NCAP the IIHS rating system provides ratings instead of
points (poor, marginal, acceptable, good). For instance, if the front-
passenger seat has an audible signal that lasts less than 8 seconds it
would be given a ``Poor'' rating. For a ``Good'' rating'' both the
driver and front-passenger belt reminder must have an audible signal
that lasts at least 90 seconds and meet the rest of the belt reminder
system requirements (essentially meet the requirements for an
``Acceptable'' rating) and meet the requirements set forth for the rear
seat belt reminder system. Accordingly, a vehicle cannot receive a
``Good'' rating without having a rear seat belt reminder system, and a
rear seat belt reminder system is not required for all the other
ratings. It does not specify occupancy criteria. We do not believe our
requirements impede meeting the requirements of the IIHS protocol.
B. Occupant Detection and Enhanced Warning Signals for the Rear Seat
Belt Warning
Rear seat warning systems that employ occupant detection have
potential advantages over systems without 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 belts, if any, are
fastened. Such systems are also better able to provide enhanced
warnings. Enhanced warnings refer (for the purposes of this document)
to warnings that are relatively longer-lasting or have an audible
component. Having an audible or longer-duration visual warning activate
for an unoccupied seat could be a nuisance for the driver and might
either desensitize the occupants to the warning signal or lead them to
circumvent or defeat the system. Enhanced warnings therefore generally
need to work in conjunction with an occupant detection system.
In the ANPRM we observed, however, that occupant detection for the
rear seats may present technical or cost challenges. Rear seats are
used in ways that can complicate occupant detection. Rear seats may
frequently be used to transport cargo such as groceries, pets, and
other heavy objects that could be mistaken for an occupant. In
addition, rear seats may be less well-defined than front seats, which
could impede accurate detection. 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. This could lead to false warnings, which can
lead occupants to disregard or attempt to circumvent the system.
Occupant detection would also be more expensive. While approximately
46.9% of MY 2022 projected vehicle sales in the United Sates have rear
seat belt warning systems, only about 7% are equipped with occupant
detection.
Occupant detection is optional but not required by both ECE R16 and
Euro NCAP. Accordingly, neither Euro NCAP nor ECE R16 require an
audible warning on vehicle start-up for the rear seats. 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 R16 requires a 60-second visual signal. For systems with
occupant detection in all rear seats, Euro NCAP specifies that the
visual signal does not need to indicate the number of seat belts in use
or not in use, but the signal must remain as long as the seat belts
remain unfastened on any of the occupied rear seats. Neither R16 nor
Euro NCAP require a visual signal if the system can determine there are
no occupants in the rear.
The ANPRM sought comment on whether NHTSA should propose rear seat
belt warning system requirements that would necessitate occupant
detection or enhanced warning signals.
Comments
Many commenters recommended requiring occupant detection in the
rear seats. Other commenters argued that occupant detection would
reduce false signals, and some argued that occupant detection was
feasible and already available in numerous vehicle models. A commenter
stated that NHTSA had provided no literature review of available
systems and their capabilities, and that NCAP programs throughout the
world had concluded that these systems are feasible and important to
advancing safety. Two commenter said that some of the technological
challenges NHTSA identified in the ANPRM have already been addressed in
systems developed for the right front passenger seat. A commenter also
noted that various NCAP programs award points for occupant detection.
Another commenter said that the residual technical challenges appear to
be mostly associated with accommodating certain child restraint
systems. The commenter believed that occupant detection with the option
of temporary driver override for the duration of an individual trip is
a reasonable approach that balances notification with recognition that
seats may be occupied by objects other than unrestrained human
occupants. Commenters also said that occupant detection systems are
cost-efficient, with a number of systems costing less than $10.
On the other hand, several commenters opposed requiring occupant
detection. Commenters suggested harmonizing with ECE R16, which does
not require occupant
[[Page 61719]]
detection. Some commenters brought up the technological and use
challenges. For example, a commenter stated that it is difficult to
distinguish actual rear occupants from other rear objects because
consumers tend to use rear seats in a wider variety of conditions
(e.g., child restraints, pets, groceries, and various types of cargo);
its experience shows that occupant detection in rear seats leads to
false alarms and reduced consumer acceptance. Several commenters raised
concerns about cost. One commenter believed that the cost of such
systems would not justify any additional benefits. Another commenter
believed that there were insufficient data available to demonstrate
that occupant detection would actually increase system effectiveness
because without occupant detection the driver knows how many occupants
are in the vehicle. On the other hand, a commenter said that costs are
not prohibitive; the commenter also stated that rear seat occupant
detection systems are available that can take into consideration the
specific challenges of the rear seat compared to a front seat,
including robust sensors to help avoid false positive warnings. At the
same time, commenters requested that any requirements not prohibit
innovation and provide manufacturers with flexibility. One commenter
opposed requiring occupant detection on buses because such systems
would be complicated (e.g., the number of seats and seating
configurations, challenges with LATCH). It also stated that it is
unaware of any occupant detection systems currently available for
buses, so all rear passenger seats currently in use will require
significant development efforts.
As noted earlier,\258\ several commenters favored requiring an
audio-visual warning at the start of the trip. A commenter also
supported requiring the most effective warnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ See Section X.C.1.a, Visual Warning at Start of Trip with
Three Compliance Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, commenters argued against requiring enhanced
warnings. A commenter recommended requiring only a visual warning on
start-up to avoid false alarms and consumer acceptance issues because
occupant detection is currently not affordable. Another commenter also
stated that consumer acceptance of enhanced warning systems in the
United States is not well understood. Commenters recommended following
R16 with respect to enhanced warnings, because it strikes an
appropriate balance of benefits, acceptance, harmonization, and costs.
Two commenters suggested that NHTSA instead consider updating NCAP to
include enhanced warnings. A commenter said that the reminder system
should use existing audio/visual warning patterns because the driving
public likely would be able to understand those more easily.
Agency Response
We have tentatively decided not to require occupant detection in
the rear seats because we tentatively believe that occupant detection
continues to present technical challenges. While it can reduce false
warnings for unoccupied seats it can also result in false warnings, due
to the limitations of the sensors and different use scenarios in the
rear seats. We acknowledge that most of the components necessary to
meet the proposed minimum performance requirements for a system with
occupant detection are readily available, and that a small portion of
the total U.S. vehicle projected sales, based on the MY2022 NCAP data,
are equipped with rear SBWS with occupant detection. However, these
potential issues surrounding the implementation of occupant detection
could reduce the effectiveness and/or acceptance of these systems and
thus we tentatively decided against requiring occupant detection.
Occupant detection would be cost-beneficial only if rear seat belt
use increased substantially more than we estimate that it would for a
warning system without occupant detection. Our teardown analysis
indicates that occupant detection components cost $39.75 per vehicle,
which, added to the $19.59 per vehicle cost of the buckle sensor,
results in a combined warning system cost of $59.33 per vehicle (2020
$). We estimate that the total new fleet cost of a rear seat belt
warning system with occupant detection would be about $758 million
(2020 $). As explained in more detail in Section XIV, Overview of Costs
and Benefits, and in the PRIA, in order for benefits and costs to be
equal for this regulatory option, seat belt use for rear seat occupants
11 years and older would need to increase by approximately 9.4 percent
when discounted at 3 percent and 11.6 percent when discounted at seven
percent. A 9 to 12 percent increase in seat belt use is about 2 to 3
times greater than that estimated for the proposed SBWS requirement.
While we would expect some possible increase in seat belt use from that
specific functionality, it is doubtful that it would double or triple
the increase in seat belt use estimated for SBWS without occupant
detection. Therefore, we do not expect this regulatory alternative to
be cost-effective or net beneficial.
This tentative decision is based on current information on factors
such as the needed increase in seat belt use for this regulatory
alternative to have positive net benefits. This proposal does not
preclude manufacturers from choosing to use occupant detection and
includes compliance options that involve the use of occupant detection.
This harmonizes with R16 and Euro NCAP. Vehicle manufacturers may in
the future implement rear seat occupant detection technology for other
functions (such as advanced occupant restraint functions or warnings
for unattended children in the rear seating positions after the vehicle
motor is turned off), which would relieve some of the cost burden and
facilitate the integration of occupant detection technology for rear
seat belt warning systems. Because we are not requiring occupant
detection, we are therefore also not requiring enhanced warnings (such
as an audible warning on vehicle start-up) for the rear seat belt
reminder. The proposal, however, gives manufacturers the flexibility to
innovate and optimize warning signal characteristics, including
providing enhanced warnings. We seek comment on these issues.
C. Non-Regulatory Alternatives
The ANPRM sought comment on whether NHTSA should consider non-
regulatory approaches. It identified two potential non-regulatory
approaches: awarding NCAP bonus points and voluntary guidelines.
Comments
Some commenters supported including rear seat belt reminders in
NCAP in addition to, but not in lieu of, a regulatory requirement in
order to accelerate adoption of advanced systems. Two commenters also
believed that inclusion in NCAP could encourage adoption. One commenter
was opposed to voluntary guidelines. The commenter said that inclusion
of occupant detection in NCAP would be the most appropriate way to
incentivize such systems and familiarize industry with their
implementation.
Agency Response
In light of the MAP-21 mandate and our tentative conclusion that
the proposed requirements would meet the section 30111 criteria, we
have decided to issue this proposal, and not pursue non-regulatory
alternatives. However, we would like to note that on March 9, 2022,
NHTSA published an RFC notice announcing its current and future plans
[[Page 61720]]
for updating NCAP.\259\ The RFC notice included a section on seat belt
interlocks that requested comment on whether NCAP should consider
credit for enhanced seat belt reminder systems and whether NCAP should
include a seat belt interlock assessment and, if so, what it would
consist of (e.g., interlock types, what seats would be covered, etc.).
The notice requested data on both topics. Our preliminary review of the
comments about whether NCAP should consider credit for enhanced seat
belt reminders found that the majority of commenters were in support of
such an initiative. A commenter stated that, rather than considering
credit for enhanced seat belt reminders, NHTSA should regulate more
persistent reminders as allowed under MAP-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ 87 FR 13452 (Mar. 9, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Requiring a Warning System for the Front Center Seat
The agency also considered requiring a seat belt warning system for
the front center seating position but is not proposing doing so for a
few reasons.
First, there is low occupancy for the front center seat. According
to 2013 FARS and GES data, only 0.4 percent of the occupants of
passenger cars and light trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less
involved in fatal or injury-only crashes were seated in the front
center seating position. This is due to the rarity of front center
seats in the modern vehicle fleet, not because this position is safer.
More specifically, 62 occupants of these vehicles seated in the front
center seat were killed. Of those fatalities, 79 percent (49 occupants)
were unrestrained. In addition, there were 8,000 occupants of these
vehicles that were injured while seated in the front center seat. Of
those front center seat occupants injured, approximately 8.2 percent
(656 occupants) were unrestrained.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ See Traffic Safety Facts 2013, NHTSA, DOT HS 812 139
(2015), Tables 87-88. Only light truck occupant injuries are
reported. The number of passenger car occupants injured was not
reported because it was less than 500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, a system for the front center seat without occupant detection
would likely not be effective. Without occupant detection, a belt
reminder system for the front center seat would be limited to providing
a positive-only visual signal (for the reasons discussed regarding the
front and rear seats and occupant detection). We believe that such a
signal would not be likely to result in meaningful safety benefits for
the front center seat. Because it would be only a visible and not an
audible warning, it would likely not provide the occupant in the front
center seat much incentive to fasten the seat belt or provide the
driver an additional incentive to request the front center passenger to
fasten the seat belt.
Finally, a system with occupant detection would not be cost-
effective or net-beneficial. When discounted at three and seven
percent, the cost per ELS is approximately $88.9 million and $110.0
million, respectively and the net benefits are negative for this
regulatory alternative. Because the cost per ELS is higher than the
comprehensive cost of a fatality and the net benefits are negative,
this regulatory alternative is not cost-effective or net-beneficial.
E. Requiring a 90 Second Duration Seat Belt Warning System for the
Front Outboard Seating Positions
As explained earlier (see Section XI.C.1), NHTSA considered a range
of alternative warning durations for the front outboard seat belt
warning. NHTSA quantified the costs and benefits for one of these
alternate durations (90 seconds). NHTSA selected the 90 second duration
length as an alternative because this is the most common audible
warning duration for the front outboard seats, based on our NCAP data.
About 92.4 percent of the new vehicle fleet is already equipped with an
audible seat belt warning with a duration of 90 seconds or greater.
Therefore, a requirement for a minimum of 90 second duration audible
warning would only affect 7.6 percent of the new vehicle fleet. The
benefit and cost analysis was conducted in a similar manner as that for
the indefinite duration seat belt warning described in Section XIV. Our
analysis found that a requirement for a 90-second audible warning would
save 7 equivalent lives with no change in the estimated cost. These
benefits are significantly lower than those for the proposed warning
that remains on until the seat belt is buckled.
We seek comment on these issues.
XIV. Overview of Benefits and Costs
In this section, we briefly present our estimates of the benefits
and costs of the proposed rear and front seat belt warning
requirements, as well as three of the major regulatory alternatives we
considered. For a more detailed discussion, please refer to the
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) in the docket for this
rulemaking. NHTSA seeks comment on its methodology, data sources, and
estimates.
A. Proposed Requirements
NHTSA quantified the benefits and costs of the proposed
requirements. In this section we present a summary of these estimates
for the rear seat belt warning system, front outboard seat belt warning
system, and then the combined costs and benefits for both proposals.
1. Rear Seat Belt Warning System
The ANPRM sought comment on the potential effectiveness, benefits,
and costs of a rear seat belt warning.
Comments
NHTSA received several comments on the potential target population.
For example, a commenter said that approximately 900 second row
unrestrained occupants are killed and another 19,000 are injured each
year, and a portion of this target population would likely have
injuries mitigated or eliminated through the use of rear seat belt
warning systems. Another commenter brought up the increasing number of
rear seat passengers,\261\ including the rise of rideshare
vehicles.\262\ Two \263\ commenters \264\ also stated that studies have
found rear seat passengers in rideshare or taxis (for hire vehicles)
are less likely to buckle up than those in privately owned (not for
hire) vehicles, and one of the commenters noted that children usually
sit in the back row, and they may unfasten their seat belt out of
boredom during a trip. A commenter also said that restraint non-use
exceeds the national average (47%) in the population of occupants
starting at age 8-12, and the unrestrained percentage for younger
occupants is 36% for 4-7 year olds and 22% for occupants less than 4
years old.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\261\ Citing 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, at: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812594.pdf.
\262\ Citing Aarian Marshall, A Third of Americans Use Ride-
Hail. Uber and Lyft Need More, Wired, Jan. 8, 2019, https://www.wired.com/story/uber-lyft-ride-hail-stats-pew-research/ (last
accessed Nov. 26, 2019).
\263\ Citing Jessica Jermakian & Rebecca Weast, Passenger use of
and attitudes toward rear seat belts. J. Safety Research 66, p. 113-
119, Feb. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2017.12.006 (last
accessed Nov. 26, 2019); Kenneth Nemire, Seat belt use by adult rear
seat passengers in private passenger, taxi, and rideshare vehicles,
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
Meeting, Oct. 20, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601896
(last accessed Nov. 26, 2019).
\264\ Citing Rear Seat Belt Use: Little Change in Four Years,
Much More To Do, GHSA, (Nov., 2019), https://www.ghsa.org/resources/RearBeltReport19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters noted a relative lack of data regarding the
effectiveness of rear seat belt warnings. A commenter stated that the
first vehicles with an advanced rear seat belt reminder system
[[Page 61721]]
only entered the Japanese and EU markets in recent years, and there are
not yet any field data available on effectiveness.
However, a few commenters did provide rough effectiveness
estimates. One commenter estimated that it was likely similar to front
seat effectiveness (3-4%). Two other commenters pointed to a 2012 SAE
paper that compared the effect of various visual and audible warnings
on rear belt use based on a series of experiments.\265\ One of the
commenters said that its research has found that seat belt warning
systems with persistent audible tones lasting at least 90 seconds
increase the seat belt use of drivers who do not routinely use a seat
belt by 34%. The commenter also referenced a Volvo survey of Volvo
owners in Sweden and Italy in 2005 showing that a rear belt warning
system had an effectiveness of approximately 50%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\265\ M. Akamatsu, H. Hashimoto and S. Shimaoka, ``Assessment
Method of Effectiveness of Passenger Seat Belt Warning,'' in SAE
International 2012-01-0050, 2012. This study is discussed in the
PRIA (Section 2.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters commented generally that a rear belt reminder
would be effective while not providing specific effectiveness
estimates. A commenter agreed with NHTSA that the proportion of
occupants who actively seek to avoid restraint use is small compared to
the proportion of part-time nonusers who would likely be amenable to
warnings. Another commenter similarly stated that many consumers do not
prioritize rear belt use but rather consider it unnecessary (for short
trips in particular), forget to buckle up, or perceive no deterrent
threat from traffic enforcement, and enforcement of seat belt laws is
more challenging for the back seat due to more difficult visibility. A
commenter said that there is extensive evidence of the effectiveness of
front seat belt reminders and there is no reason to believe that rear
seat belt reminder effectiveness would significantly differ. Commenters
noted the NHTSA research on seat belt warnings discussed in Section V,
showing a generally positive increase in use rates. Commenters referred
to an IIHS survey showing that, of 1,172 respondents who had ridden in
the back seat during the preceding six months, 75% said they would be
more likely to wear the rear seat belt if someone in the car reminded
them, 62% would if there was an audible belt reminder, and 50% would if
there was a visual belt reminder.\266\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\266\ Citing Highway Loss Data Inst., Ins. Inst. for Highway
Safety, Unbelted: Adults Admit They Often Skip Belts in Rear Seat,
52 Status Rep. 1, 3 (Aug. 3, 2017), available at https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/pdf/52/5 (last
accessed Nov. 26, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to costs, a commenter said that seat belt reminder
systems require a relatively small investment, and low-cost 2-D or
digital cameras (which are cheaper than seat sensors) could be used to
detect a rear seat passenger. Two commenters said that the cost will
decrease further if rear seat belt reminder systems are required in all
vehicles. A commenter said that for passenger cars already equipped
with rear seat buckle monitoring (13% in US for MY 2019; almost 100% of
new vehicle models in the EU market, legally required in EU for new
types from September 2019 onwards), the additional costs for the
occupant detection technology to cover the second row seating positions
are in the low two-digit range. The commenter also stated that among
vehicles available in the EU with advanced rear seat SBR systems, a
couple are vehicle models that belong to the high-volume, cost-
sensitive vehicle segments (small/compact cars), showing that the
additional costs for the rear seat occupant detection are not
prohibitive. The commenter said that the occupant detection sensors for
a seat belt warning system are available at lower costs than occupant
classification (e.g., for front air bags) sensors.
Agency Response
Based on FARS and NASS-CDS data from 2011 to 2015, on average 1,002
unrestrained rear seat occupants were killed in crashes and 7,820 were
injured.\267\ After adjusting these to account for future decreases in
fatalities and injuries projected to occur in the absence of the
proposed requirements due to the introduction of other mandatory safety
technologies (e.g., electronic stability control), there were, on
average, 475 fatalities and 7,036 injuries to unrestrained rear seat
occupants each year. This is the overall target population--the annual
deaths and injuries that the proposed requirements are aimed at
reducing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\267\ See PRIA, Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimated the benefits we expect to result from the proposed
rear seat belt warning requirements. The benefits are the fatalities
and injuries that we estimate would be prevented by the proposed
requirements. The benefits depend, principally, on the effectiveness of
seat belts in preventing deaths and injuries and the expected increase
in seat belt use due to the proposed rear seat belt warning system
requirements. Seat belt effectiveness for rear seat occupants is 55
percent for passenger cars and 74 percent for light trucks and
vans.\268\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\268\ See PRIA, Table 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA believes that the proposed minimum required warning signal
characteristics would be effective at informing the driver of the use
status of the rear seat belts and facilitating the driver to request
that a rear passenger fasten an unfastened belt. A seat belt warning
system can increase rear seat belt use in two ways: it can remind an
occupant to fasten their belt, and it can inform the driver that a
passenger is unbuckled, so that the driver can request the occupant to
fasten their belt.\269\ 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. As noted above, in NHTSA's 2015 survey, 65% 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.\270\ Also, as noted earlier, part-time
users--the predominant nonuser group--are amenable to seat belt
warnings. In addition, children, who might be particularly compliant to
driver requests, are proportionally much more likely to be rear seat
passengers than are adults.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\269\ Motoyuki Akamatsu et al., Assessment Method of
Effectiveness of Passenger Seat Belt Reminder. 2012-01-0050, SAE
International (2012).
\270\ Survey of Principal Drivers of Vehicles with a Rear Seat
Belt Reminder System at 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that any of the three compliance options would be
effective at doing this. While some provide more information than
others, and some would require the driver to fill in some informational
gaps, even the most basic system (positive-only) would inform the
driver about which belts are fastened; the driver would readily be able
to determine whether there were any unbelted occupants. We also believe
that the 60-second visual warning would be effective. NHTSA could have
proposed a more intrusive warning signal, such as an audible warning
and/or a longer-duration visual warning. However, because such warnings
necessitate occupant detection and we have tentatively decided not to
require occupant detection, we have also tentatively decided not to
propose more aggressive warnings.
NHTSA estimated the effectiveness of the proposed rear seat belt
warnings. Available research regarding seat belt use indicates that
seat belt warning
[[Page 61722]]
systems are effective at increasing seat belt use; however, estimates
of the amount of increased belt usage that can be attributed to warning
systems vary. In arriving at our estimates of increased seat belt
usage, we examined research conducted by NHTSA and others, as well as
information submitted in response to the request for comments. For rear
seat passengers eleven years old and older, we used a ``low'' estimate
of 3.4 percentage points, and a ``high'' estimate of 5.1 percentage
points.\272\ For rear seat passengers from six to eleven years old, we
used a low estimate of 0.27 percentage points and a high estimate of
0.41 percentage points.\273\ (The estimated increases for younger
passengers are much lower because they already have high rates of seat
belt use). For simplicity, we refer to these scenarios as ``Low'' and
``High,'' or ``3%'' and ``5%.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ See PRIA, Table 33.
\273\ See PRIA, Table 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these belt and warning system effectiveness estimates, we
estimate that the proposed rear seat belt warning requirements would
prevent 22 fatalities and 75 injuries annually under the ``Low''
scenario. Under the ``High'' scenario, we estimate that 34 fatalities
and 112 injuries would be prevented annually.\274\ See table 9. Another
way to measure benefits is by calculating equivalent lives saved.
Equivalent lives saved are the number of prevented fatalities added to
the number of prevented injuries, with the prevented injuries expressed
in terms of fatalities (that is, with an injury expressed as a fraction
of a fatality, so that the more serious the injury, the higher the
fraction). The estimated equivalent lives saved are presented in table
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\ See PRIA, Table 47.
Table 9--Estimated Annual Benefits--Lives Saved and Injuries Prevented
for Positive-Only SBWS (Rear Seats), With Estimated 3 & 5 Percentage
Point Increase in Belt Use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury level 3% (low) 5% (high)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIS 1 \275\............................ 23.2 34.3
MAIS 2.................................. 40.2 60.3
MAIS 3.................................. 5.6 8.4
MAIS 4.................................. 5.5 8.2
MAIS 5.................................. 0.2 0.3
-------------------------------
Total Injuries...................... 74.7 111.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatal................................... 22.3 33.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10--Estimated Annual Benefits--Equivalent Lives Saved--Positive-
Only SBWS (Rear Seats) \276\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount
Belt use increase rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% increase............................. 21.9 17.7
5% increase............................. 32.9 26.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also estimated the costs of the proposed requirements. To comply
with the minimum proposed requirements (the positive-only compliance
option), the system would need to have seat belt buckle sensors (to
determine if the belt is fastened) and wiring and wire conduits to
provide information on the belt buckle status from the rear seats to
the computer processor controlling the warning system. Based on the
results of NHTSA's teardown analysis, we estimate a cost of $6.28 per
seat. Given an average of 3.12 rear seats per vehicle, this yields a
final cost of $19.59 per vehicle. Based on this, the cost to the fleet
to comply with the proposed minimum requirements (the positive-only
system) is $167.8 million (M).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\275\ The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) is a classification
system for assessing impact injury severity developed and published
by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine and is
used for coding single injuries, assessing multiple injuries, or for
assessing cumulative effects of more than one injury. MAIS
represents the maximum injury severity of an occupant at an AIS
level, i.e., the highest single AIS for a person with one or more
injuries. MAIS 1 & 2 injuries are considered minor injuries and MAIS
3-5 are considered serious injuries.
\276\ See PRIA, Table 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the forgoing, we performed benefit-cost and cost-
effectiveness analyses. A benefit-cost analysis calculates net
benefits, which is the difference between the benefits flowing from
injury and fatality reductions and the cost of the rule. Our net
benefit estimates are presented in table 11. The cost-effectiveness
analysis derives the cost per equivalent life saved, which is equal to
the total cost of the rule divided by the total fatal equivalents that
it prevents. These estimates are presented in table 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ See PRIA, Table 79.
Table 11--Net Benefits--Positive-Only SBWS (Rear Seats) \277\
[2020 Dollars, in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount
Seat position and belt use increase rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% increase............................. $95.6 $46.2
5% increase............................. 228.3 153.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61723]]
Table 12--Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Cost per Equivalent Life Saved)--Proposed Positive-Only System \278\
[2020 Dollars, in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat position and belt use increase ELS Cost Cost/ELS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% increase..................................................... 21.9 $166.4 $7.6
5% increase..................................................... 32.9 166.4 5.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% increase..................................................... 17.7 $166.4 $9.4
5% increase..................................................... 26.7 166.4 6.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Front Seat Belt Warning System
Based on FARS and NASS-GES data from 2011 to 2015, on average 7,503
unrestrained drivers and 1,453 unrestrained front outboard passengers
of passenger cars and light trucks were killed annually in traffic
crashes. Additionally, 53,113 unrestrained drivers and 10,324
unrestrained front outboard passengers were, on average, injured
annually. After adjusting these to account for future decreases in
fatalities and injuries projected to occur in the absence of the
proposed requirements due to the introduction of other mandatory safety
technologies (e.g., electronic stability control), there were, on
average, 6,733 fatalities and 47,952 injuries to unrestrained front
seat occupants each year. This is the overall target population--the
annual deaths and injuries that the proposed requirements are aimed at
reducing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ See PRIA, Table 73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the NOPUS, 90.6% of the drivers used the seat belt in
2021, which is slightly higher when compared to passengers in the
right-front seating position with an observed belt use rate of
89.4%.\279\ In order to estimate the percentage of drivers and front
passengers who do not always use a seat belt, we used the results from
a 2004 analysis using data from the Household Component of the 2002
Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS-HC) \280\ that found that among
persons 16-64 years of age, 87.7 percent reported always or nearly
always using seat belts when driving or riding in a car. Another 6.9
percent reported sometimes using seat belts, while 5.4 percent reported
seldom or never using seat belts when driving or riding in a car. These
results are summarized in table 13. This means, when an observation is
made about the percentage of drivers who use the seat belts, the
observed belt use rate is higher than 87.7% since the other groups
would contribute to the observed belt use rate although they are not
always using the seat belts. NHTSA recognizes that driving habits may
or may not have changed since 2002 as seat belt use rates have
increased and as new generations of drivers and passengers are on the
road. NHTSA considered, but tentatively decided not to use, the results
of more recent studies, such as the (2016) Motor Vehicle Occupant
Safety Survey \281\ to estimate the percentage of drivers and front
passengers who do not always use a seat belt. While the 2016 MVOSS is
more recent, we decided to use the 2004 study because we tentatively
concluded that the data provided by the 2004 study best suited the
needs of our analysis. Given that most data on seat belt use is self-
reported, the 2004 study has a high sample size (approximately 25,000)
\282\ and provides robust categorizations of seat belt use that fits
the needs of our analysis. Furthermore, when comparing this data to the
findings of the 2016 MVOSS, we did not find evidence that these trends
have significantly changed over time.\283\ NHTSA seeks comment on
instead using the results of more recent studies, such as the 2016
MVOSS, or other data sources commenters are able to identify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\279\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2021,
December). Seat belt use in 2021--Overall results (Traffic Safety
Facts Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 813 241). National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
\280\ May Chu, ``Statistical brief #62: Characteristics of
Persons Who Seldom or Never Wear Seat Belts 2002.'' https://meps.ahrq.gov/data_files/publications/st62/stat62.pdf.
\281\ Spado, D., Schaad, A., & Block, A. (2019, December). 2016
motor vehicle occupant safety survey; Volume 2: Seat belt report
(Report No. DOT HS 812 727). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
\282\ Compared to the 2016 MVOSS, which had, depending on the
question, sample sizes of approximately 5,000 to 10,000.
\283\ For example, the 2016 MVOSS found that about 6% of drivers
reported using their belt sometimes (most of the time or some of the
time. See pg. 7 (Fig. 5) in the MVOSS.
Table 13--Seat Belt Use Characteristics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belt user and related items Rate (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A reported ``sometimes using seat belts''............... 6.9
A reported ``seldom or never using seat belts when 5.4
driving or riding in a car''...........................
Percentage of drivers who always use seat belts, 87.7
calculated.............................................
---------------
Total............................................... 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we did for the rear seats, NHTSA estimated the effectiveness and
benefits associated with requiring a seat belt warning system that
remains activated until the seat belts are buckled for the driver and
front outboard passenger seats. In developing this estimate, NHTSA used
the results of a study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) by Kidd et al. (2019) \284\ In the Kidd et al. (2019)
study, part-time belt users (who had a recent seat belt citation and
reported not always using a seat belt) drove two vehicles for a certain
period of time, a Chevrolet with three intermittent 7-second audible
warnings followed by either a BMW with a 100-second audible warning
(n=17) or a Subaru with an audible warning that continues until the
seat belt is buckled (n=16). (All of the vehicles provided a visual
warning that lasted until the seat belt was buckled.) Kidd et al. found
that, relative to the intermittent reminder (i.e., 7-second audible
reminder), the BMW warning with the 100-second audible reminder
increased seat belt use by 30% and the Subaru warning with
[[Page 61724]]
the indefinite audible warning increased belt use by 34%.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ ``The effects of persistent audible seat belt reminders
and a speed-limiting interlock on the seat belt use of drivers who
do not always use a seat belt,'' April 2019, David G. Kidd Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety, Jeremiah Singer Westat, Inc.
\285\ There were several limitations in this study, the main one
being that the number of study participants was small, and,
consequently, there was limited statistical power when comparing the
change in rate of belt use between the different vehicle technology
conditions. The study further discusses this and other limitations,
such as how the demographics of the study sample differs from part-
time belt users nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA estimates, based on the NOPUS, Chu, and IIHS studies, that a
requirement for an indefinite duration audible seat belt warning would
increase the overall observed seat belt use rate by 2.8 percentage
points for the driver and 2.4 percentage points for the front outboard
passenger from current observed seat belt use levels.
NHTSA also reviewed manufacturer data for model year 2020 vehicles
to determine market penetration of indefinite duration seat belt
warning systems in the front outboard seats and that of a 90-second or
greater duration warning and obtained the estimates in table 14.
Table 14--Market Penetration of Different Duration Seat Belt Audible
Warning Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
SBWS system sales
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<90 second warning...................................... 7.6
90 second and 90+ but not indefinite.................... 85.2
Enhanced--Warning until seat belt is buckled............ 7.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For front seat occupants, seat belts reduce the risk of fatality by
44% (for passenger cars) and 73% (for light trucks and vans).\286\ Seat
belts reduce the risk of moderate to greater severity injuries by up to
50%.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ See PRIA, Table 30.
\287\ See PRIA, Table 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the estimated seat belt warning system effectiveness in
increasing seat belt use, the market penetration of different duration
seat belt audible warning systems, and the effectiveness of seat belts
in mitigating fatalities and injuries, NHTSA estimates that requiring
an audio-visual seat belt warning that remains activated until the seat
belt is buckled (indefinite duration) would prevent 65 driver
fatalities, 11 front outboard passenger fatalities, and a total of 211
injuries annually, as shown in table 15. This results in 92 equivalent
lives saved (Table 16).
Table 15--Estimated Annual Benefits--Lives Saved and Injuries Prevented--Indefinite SBWS (Front Outboard Seats)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front
Injury level Driver passenger Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIS 1.......................................................... 20.7 3.7 24.4
MAIS 2.......................................................... 120.0 20.5 140.5
MAIS 3.......................................................... 21.6 3.9 25.5
MAIS 4.......................................................... 17.4 3.1 20.5
MAIS 5.......................................................... 0.5 0.1 0.6
-----------------------------------------------
Total Injuries.............................................. 180.2 31.2 211.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatal........................................................... 65.9 11.4 77.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated annual benefits in terms of equivalent lives saved is
shown in Table 17.
Table 16--Estimated Annual Benefits--Equivalent Lives Saved--Indefinite SBWS
[Front Outboard Seats]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount
Undiscounted rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver.......................................................... 78.7 65.2 52.8
Front Passenger................................................. 13.6 11.3 9.2
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 92.3 76.5 62.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also estimated the costs of the proposed requirements. Since all
driver seats are required to have at least the basic warning system,
the incremental cost of enhanced seat belt warning for the driver seat
is zero. We assume there would be some labor costs associated with
software updates needed to extend the warning. However, as this is a
simple programming change, this cost would be amortized over each
vehicle's production and is therefore considered de minimis. Though
there are no requirements for a seat belt warning system for the front
outboard passenger seat, NHTSA estimates that 96 percent of vehicles
have seat belt warning systems on the front outboard passenger seat.
NHTSA estimated the cost of equipping a seat belt warning system in the
front outboard passenger seat to be $2.13 per seat. Therefore, the cost
of equipping the remaining 4 percent of the 16 million new vehicle
fleet is $1.36 million (= 16 million x 4 percent x $2.13).
Based on the foregoing, we performed benefit-cost and cost-
effectiveness analyses. The estimated net benefits are presented in
table 17 and the cost-effectiveness estimates are presented in Table
18.
[[Page 61725]]
Table 17--Annual Monetized Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits--Indefinite SBWS (Front Outboard Seats)
[2020 dollars, in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver Front passenger Driver and Front Passenger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 3% 7% Undiscounted 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Car Benefits......................... $422.5 $353.0 $288.0 $79.9 $66.7 $54.4 $502.4 $419.7 $342.4
Light Truck & Van Benefits..................... 520.4 427.6 344.8 83.4 68.5 55.2 603.8 496.1 400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits............................. 942.9 780.5 632.8 163.3 135.2 109.7 1,106.2 915.8 742.5
Total Costs................................ 0 0 0 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits................................... 942.9 780.5 632.8 161.9 133.9 108.3 1,104.8 914.4 741.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 18--Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Cost per Equivalent Life Saved)--Indefinite SBWS (Front Outboard Seats)
[2020 dollars, in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate ELS Cost Cost/ELS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3%.............................................................. 76.5 $1.36 $0.018
7%.............................................................. 62.0 1.36 0.022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Overall Benefits and Costs of Proposal
In Table 19, we combine the benefits and costs for the proposed
rear and front seat belt warning requirements. We estimate positive net
benefits under all discount rates and effectiveness estimates.
Table 19--Net Benefits From the Proposal (SBWS for Rear Seating
Positions and Indefinite SBWS for Front Outboard Seating Positions)
[2020 dollars, in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount
rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front Outboard Seats.................... $914.4 $741.1
Rear Seats (3% increase in rear seat 95.6 46.2
belt use)..............................
Rear Seats (5% increase in rear seat 228.3 153.9
belt use)..............................
Total Net Benefits (3% increase in rear 1,010.0 787.4
belt use)..............................
Total Net Benefits (5% increase in rear 1,142.7 895.0
belt use)..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Table 20, we combine the equivalent lives saved and cost for the
proposed rear and front seat belt warning requirements to determine the
cost per equivalent life saved.
Table 20--Cost per Equivalent Lives Saved From the Proposal (SBWS for Rear Seating Positions and Indefinite SBWS for Front Outboard Seating Positions)
[2020 dollars, in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category % Cost per Cost per
Equivalent Cost equivalent Equivalent Cost equivalent
lives saved lives saved lives saved lives saved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear Seat Occupants............................. 3 21.9 $166.4 $7.61 17.7 $166.4 $9.38
5 32.9 5.05 26.7 6.23
Front Seat Occupants............................ 76.5 1.4 0.018 62.0 1.4 0.022
Total....................................... 3 98.4 167.8 1.71 79.7 167.8 2.11
5 109.4 1.53 88.7 1.89
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory Alternatives
In the preceding sections of this document, we discussed various
alternatives for different aspects of the proposed requirements. In
Section XIII, Regulatory Alternatives, we identified five major
alternatives that we considered. We quantified the costs and benefits
of three of these alternatives (rear-seat occupant detection, a 90-
second front outboard seat belt warning, and front center seat belt
warning). Below, we briefly summarize our results. For a more detailed
discussion, the reader is referred to the Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis in the docket for this rulemaking.
1. Occupant Detection in Rear Seats
For the rear seat belt reminder, NHTSA is proposing to specify
three
[[Page 61726]]
different compliance options. One of these (the positive-only system)
would not necessitate occupant detection, while the other two (the
negative-only and full-status) would necessitate occupant detection.
NHTSA estimated the costs and benefits of requiring a system with
occupant detection.
NHTSA's teardown analysis indicates that occupant detection
components cost $39.75 per vehicle, which, added to the $19.59 per
vehicle cost of the buckle sensor, results in a combined warning system
cost of $59.33 per vehicle (2020 $). NHTSA estimates that about 47
percent of new vehicles have a SBWS for the rear seating positions and
7 percent of new vehicles have occupant detection in rear seats. If
NHTSA selected the regulatory alternative where occupant detection is
required, this would result in a total cost of $757.7M. This cost
estimate is based on the assumption that 53 percent of new vehicles
would need to install a seat belt sensor in the rear seats and 93
percent would need to also install occupant detection in the rear seats
to comply with the regulatory requirement.
Because there is uncertainty in how much more effective a SBWS with
occupant detection would be in increasing seat belt use compared to the
already estimated increase in seat belt use with the proposed SBWS
without occupant detection, NHTSA did not conduct a cost-effectiveness
and net benefits analysis. Instead, NHTSA estimated the minimum
increase in seat belt use for this regulatory alternative that would
result in overall benefits equal to the overall costs (zero net
benefits). The agency estimated that seat belt use for rear seat
occupants 11 years and older would need to increase by approximately
9.4 percent when discounted at 3 percent and 11.6 percent when
discounted at 7 percent for this regulatory alternative to result in
zero net benefits. Therefore, increase in seat belt use from this
regulatory alternative would need to be greater than 9.4 percent at 3
percent discount rate and greater than 11.6 percent at 7 percent
discount rate for positive net benefits. A 9 to 12 percent increase in
seat belt use is about 2 to 3 times greater than that estimated for the
proposed SBWS requirement. The SBWS considered under this regulatory
alternative are capable of letting the driver know, for occupied rear
seats, either which occupants are not using their seat belts or how
many of the rear seat occupants are not using their seat belts. While
we would expect some possible increase in seat belt use from that
specific functionality, it is doubtful that it would double or triple
the increase in seat belt use estimated for SBWS without occupant
detection. Therefore, we do not expect this regulatory alternative to
be cost-effective or net beneficial.
2. 90-Second Front Outboard Seat Belt Warning
NHTSA also estimated the costs and benefits if it were to require a
90-second audio-visual warning for the front outboard seats instead of
the proposed requirement for a warning that lasts until the belt and
any occupied seat is buckled. NHTSA estimated the benefits in a similar
manner as that for the proposed seat belt warning for front seat
occupants where the warning remains on until the seat belt is buckled.
One difference is that, for the 90-second duration alternative, we
assumed that the drivers and passengers who identify as never using a
seat belt would likely not use the seat belt with a 90-second duration
warning. Another difference is that this alternative only affects 7.6
percent of the vehicle fleet with front seat occupant seat belt warning
with duration less than 90 seconds.
The benefits of this alternative are presented in Table 21.
Table 21--Injuries Prevented, Lives Saved, and Equivalent Lives Saved in Front Outboard Seats by a 90-Second
Duration SBWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injuries and fatalities Equivalent lives saved
prevented -------------------------------
Injury level --------------------------------
Front Driver Front
Driver passenger passenger
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIS 1.......................................... 1.84 0.22 0.01 0.00
MAIS 2.......................................... 9.85 1.18 0.46 0.05
MAIS 3.......................................... 1.77 0.22 0.19 0.02
MAIS 4.......................................... 1.43 0.18 0.38 0.05
MAIS 5.......................................... 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00
Fatal........................................... 5.29 0.65 5.29 0.65
Total....................................... .............. .............. 6.34 0.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About 7 equivalent lives are saved by this alternative, which is
significantly lower than the 86 equivalent lives saved by a warning
that remains on until the seat belt is buckled. The cost of this
alternative is the same as that for the proposed warning. The only cost
is that for the 4 percent of vehicles without a seat belt warning
system in the front outboard passenger seat (cost = $1.36 million). The
annual monetized benefits, costs, and net benefits of this alternative
are shown in Table 22.
Table 22--Annual Monetized Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits for a 90-Second Duration SBWS in Front Outboard Seats \288\
[2020 dollars, in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver Front passenger Driver and front passenger
Vehicle type -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 3% 7% Undiscounted 3% 7% Undiscounted 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC.......................................... $35.3 $29.5 $25.4 $4.7 $3.9 $3.2 $40.0 $33.4 $27.2
LTV......................................... 40.7 33.4 26.9 4.6 3.8 3.1 45.2 37.2 30.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits.......................... 75.9 62.9 51.0 9.3 7.7 6.2 85.2 70.6 57.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61727]]
Costs....................................... 0 0 0 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36
Net Benefits................................ 75.9 62.9 51.0 7.9 6.3 4.9 83.8 69.2 55.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this regulatory alternative is cost effective, the benefits
are significantly lower than that of the proposed warning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ See PRIA, Table 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Seat Belt Warning for Front Center Seat
The agency also considered requiring a seat belt warning system for
the front center seating position. To estimate incremental benefits,
NHTSA used the 2011-2015 FARS data, the adjustment factors to account
for safety impacts of new required safety technologies, and the injury-
to-fatality ratios by injury severity to establish the target
population addressed by this regulatory alterative (Table 23).
Table 23--Annual Adjusted Fatalities and Non-Fatal Injuries to Front Center Seat Passengers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle type Injury severity Restrained Unrestrained Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC.................................... MAIS 1.................. 11 15 26
MAIS 2.................. 5 7 11
MAIS 3.................. 1 2 3
MAIS 4.................. 1 1 2
MAIS 5.................. 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------
Total Injuries (MAIS 1- 18 25 43
5).
Fatal................... 2 3 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LTV................................... MAIS 1.................. 23 112 135
MAIS 2.................. 8 38 46
MAIS 3.................. 0 0 0
MAIS 4.................. 0 2 2
MAIS 5.................. 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------
Total Injuries (MAIS 1- 31 152 183
5).
Fatal................... 5 23 28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to a lack of data, NHTSA is unable to establish the seat belt
use rate for front center passengers under the baseline. Also, due to
this limitation, the agency cannot estimate the increase in seat belt
use rates under this regulatory alternative. Since front center seat
passengers are most similar to right front seat passengers, NHTSA used
the effectiveness rates calculated for indefinite duration seat belt
warning system for the front outboard passenger seat to estimate
incremental benefits as shown in Table 24.
Table 24--Incremental Benefits for Indefinite Duration SBWS in Front Center Seating Position
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculated
effectiveness of
indefinite
Injury severity Observed injuries duration SBWS for Incremental
front outboard benefits
passenger seats
(%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Cars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIS 1................................................. 26 0.03 0.0078
MAIS 2................................................. 11 0.41 0.0466
MAIS 3................................................. 3 0.41 0.0129
MAIS 4................................................. 2 0.41 0.0093
MAIS 5................................................. 0 0.41 0.0002
Fatal.................................................. 6 0.43 0.0241
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LTVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIS 1................................................. 135 0.03 0.0405
[[Page 61728]]
MAIS 2................................................. 46 0.41 0.1878
MAIS 3................................................. 0 0.41 0.0012
MAIS 4................................................. 2 0.41 0.0088
MAIS 5................................................. 0 0.41 0.0006
Fatal.................................................. 28 0.43 0.1203
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost for front center passenger seats would include the cost
for a buckle sensor and occupant detection. Therefore, the cost per
vehicle for this regulatory alternative is $14.86 in 2020 dollars. This
cost estimate reflects a cost of $2.13 to add a buckle sensor and the
cost to add occupant detection for $12.73.
In assessing the number of vehicles that would be impacted by this
regulatory alternative, we consider that the front center seat is not a
common feature in new light vehicles. Based on our engineering
judgement, we expect that 800,000 vehicles or five percent of the new
vehicle fleet include a center seating position. Table 25 presents the
total cost to meet the requirements under this regulatory alternative
for an indefinite duration SBWS for front center passenger seats.
Table 25--Total Cost of Indefinite Duration SBWS for Front Center
Passenger Seats
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per vehicle
Number of vehicles impacted cost Total cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
800,000............................... $14.86 $11,888,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 26 presents the of the cost-effectiveness analysis and Table
27 presents the benefit-cost analysis for this regulatory alternative.
When discounted at three and seven percent, the cost per ELS is
approximately $88.9 million and $110.0 million, respectively and the
net benefits are negative for this regulatory alternative. Because the
cost per ELS is higher than the comprehensive cost of a fatality and
the net benefits are negative, this regulatory alternative is not cost-
effective.
Table 26--Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for SBWS Front Center Seat Passengers
[Millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted at 3% Discounted at 7%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Cost per Cost per
Equivalent Cost equivalent Equivalent Cost equivalent
lives saved lives saved lives saved lives saved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front Center Seat................................. 0.1337 $11.89 $88.91 0.1081 $11.89 $110.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 27--Benefit-Cost Analysis for SBWS Front Center Seat Passengers
[Millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted at 3% Discounted at 7%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Monetized Monetized
benefits Cost Net benefits benefits Cost Net benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front Center Seat................................. $1.60 $11.89 -$10.29 $1.29 $11.89 -$10.59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XV. Proposed Effective Date
We received one comment responding to the ANPRM on the effective
date. The commenter said that adequate lead-time and phase-ins should
be provided. With respect to eliminating the eight-second limitation
for the front seat requirements, the commenter stated that R16 and the
corresponding FMVSS requirements are safety neutral, so compliance with
either of these requirements should be permitted for a sufficient
period of time to permit the orderly phase-out of current models with
long product refresh cycle durations.
In order to accelerate the fleet penetration of the proposed seat
belt warning requirements and to achieve the associated benefits as
quickly as reasonably possible, NHTSA proposes an effective date of the
first September 1 that is one year after the publication of the final
rule for the front seat belt warning system requirements and the first
September 1 that is two years after the publication of the final rule
for the
[[Page 61729]]
rear seat belt warning system requirements, with optional early
compliance permitted. For example, if the final rule were published on
October 1, 2022, the effective date would be September 1, 2024, for the
front seat belt warning system requirements and September 1, 2025, for
the rear seat belt warning system requirements. Consistent with 49 CFR
571.8(b), multi-stage manufacturers and alterers would have an
additional year to comply.
To equip vehicles with one of the proposed rear seat belt warning
systems, a manufacturer could utilize existing vehicle components such
as door sensors, audible signals, and the center console display.
Integrating a rear seat belt warning system in vehicles would require
equipping the rear seats with certain components most vehicles do not
already have, such as the appropriate seat belt use sensing technology
(seat belt latch sensors, which are readily available). Manufacturers
would also have to redesign the hardware and software as necessary to
incorporate the required signals, incorporate new visual signals in the
instrument panel (if the visual signal is located there) and validate
the performance of these components and systems. These endeavors take
time, which we estimate to be two years.
On the other hand, almost all vehicles (96%) already have a front
outboard passenger seat belt warning system. The majority of vehicle
manufacturers would simply have to make software adjustments necessary
to ensure it meets the proposed requirements. Occupant detection
technology is readily available and the majority of the front outboard
passenger seats already have a seat belt warning or occupant sensing
technology needed to meet the proposed requirements. We acknowledge
that a small portion of vehicles (4%) that do not have a front outboard
passenger seat belt warning system will require hardware and software
adjustments, but this is not a new technology and we believe
manufacturers can focus their resources accordingly to meet the front
seat belt warning system requirements earlier than the rear seat belt
warning system requirements.
Overall, the proposed seat belt warning requirements should not
require much interior redesign, nor should they require the use of much
new technology. When the FMVSS No. 208 driver seat belt warning was
first required in 1971, less than a year of lead time was given for
vehicles that chose a compliance option that required the warning.\289\
We believe that the proposed effective dates will provide manufacturers
with sufficient time to integrate the proposed rear and front passenger
seat belt warnings (if one is not already in place).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\289\ 36 FR 4600 (Mar. 10, 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, we appreciate the challenges multi-stage
manufacturers and alterers may face as a result of these new rear seat
belt warning requirements in terms of obtaining and implementing the
necessary hardware. We note, however, that most of the components
necessary to meet the proposed minimum performance requirements for the
proposed seat belt warnings are readily available from original
equipment manufacturers and we do not foresee any major delays in
obtaining them. In order to provide flexibility to these small
businesses, and in accordance with 49 CFR 571.8(b), multi-stage
manufacturers and alterers would have an extra year of lead time.
We seek comment on these issues. If a commenter believes one year
does not provide sufficient lead time for the front seat warning, NHTSA
seeks comment on the types of vehicles for which additional lead time
is requested and the basis for such a request. Alternatively, if a
commenter believes the compliance period is too long in light of the
safety considerations addressed in this NPRM, NHTSA seeks comment on an
alternative compliance period.
XVI. Regulatory Analyses
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14094, Executive Order 13563,
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
We have considered the potential impact of this proposed rule under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14094, Executive Order 13563,
DOT Order 2100.6A and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures.\290\ The Office of Management and Budget has
determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action
and was reviewed under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as amended by
E.O. 14094. Pursuant to E.O. 12866 and the Department's policies, we
have identified the problem this proposed rule addresses, assessed the
benefits and costs, and considered alternatives. These analyses have
been summarized in Section VI, Safety Need and Section XIV, Overview of
Benefits and Costs and are discussed in more detail in the docketed
preliminary regulatory impact analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\290\ 49 CFR part 5, subpart B; Department of Transportation
Order 2100.6A, Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures, June 7, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides
that the regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ
from those taken by the United States to address similar issues, and
that in some cases the differences between them might not be necessary
and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and
compete internationally. It further recognizes that in meeting shared
challenges involving health, safety, and other issues, international
regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as
protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such
cooperation and can reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements.
In addition, section 24211 of the Infrastructure, Investment, and
Jobs Act, Global Harmonization, provides that DOT ``shall cooperate, to
the maximum extent practicable, with foreign governments,
nongovernmental stakeholder groups, the motor vehicle industry, and
consumer groups with respect to global harmonization of vehicle
regulations as a means for improving motor vehicle safety.'' \291\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ H.R. 3684 (117th Congress) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing this proposal, our intent was to harmonize with ECE
R16 and Euro NCAP as much as possible, but deviate where we believed it
was justified with respect to the Safety Act criteria (need for safety,
objectivity, practicability). The tentative reasons for following or
deviating in any of these respects are explained in detail in the
relevant section of the preamble. In general, we believe that although
the proposal deviates from R16 in some ways, the two are not
incompatible, so that it is possible to design a rear reminder system
that complies with the proposed requirements and is compatible with
R16. Further, almost all international NCAP programs, including those
in Europe, Japan, China, Korea, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and
Australia and New Zealand award points to vehicles that are equipped
with seat belt warning systems for passenger seating positions. Thus,
the proposed requirements are consistent with these international
programs and complement those international efforts to increase seat
belt use by all vehicle occupants.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by
[[Page 61730]]
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996), whenever an agency is required to publish an NPRM or final rule,
it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory
flexibility analysis (RFA) that describes the effect of the rule on
small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's
regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a
business entity ``which operates primarily within the United States.''
(13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if
the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this proposed rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. According to 13 CFR 121.201, the Small
Business Administration's size standards regulations used to define
small business concerns, manufacturers of the vehicles covered by this
final rule would fall under North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) No. 336211, Automobile Manufacturing, which has a size
standard of 1,000 employees or fewer.
NHTSA estimates that there are three small light vehicle
manufacturers in the U.S. We estimate that there are several hundred
second-stage or final-stage manufacturers and alterers that could be
impacted by a final rule. The agency has analyzed the economic impact
on these entities. For the reasons discussed below and in the PRIA, we
tentatively conclude that if made final, this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The proposed rule would directly affect motor vehicle
manufacturers. However, we believe that the proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on these entities. Small
manufacturers are already certifying their vehicle's compliance, for
the driver position, with FMVSS No. 208's seat belt warning system
requirements. The means they use to certify to the current requirements
would be similar to or the same as those they would use to certify to
the proposed rear seat belt warning requirements.
Further, the proposed compliance test is a relatively simple test,
involving a test technician positioning a person or test dummy in a
seat and checking if the requisite signals activate. Checking to see if
visual and audible warnings activate for the driver seat belt warning
system has been a part of FMVSS No. 208 compliance testing for many
years, and manufacturers are knowledgeable about conducting such tests.
Small manufacturers have options available to certify compliance,
none of which will result in a significant economic impact on these
entities. The manufacturers can and do obtain seating systems from seat
suppliers and install the seats on the body following the instructions
of the seat supplier. Seat and seat belt suppliers are large entities
with resources available to assist small manufacturers in incorporating
the seat belt warning systems, if manufacturers need technical
assistance (which we do not think they will need, given the simplicity
of the systems, particularly those rear systems that do not involve
occupant detection). We do not believe that current manufacturing
practices would have to change significantly as a result of a final
rule.
In addition, we also believe that the proposed rulemaking would not
have a significant impact on small and limited-line vehicle
manufacturers because the market for the vehicles produced by these
entities is highly inelastic. Purchasers of these vehicles are
attracted by the desire to have an unusual vehicle. Further, all light
vehicles would have to comply with the proposed requirements. Since the
price of complying with the proposed rule would likely be passed on to
the final consumer, the price of competitor's models would increase by
similar amounts. Further, we do not believe that raising the price of a
vehicle to include the cost of a rear seat belt warning system would
have much, if any, effect on vehicle sales.
There are a significant number (several hundred) of second-stage or
final-stage manufacturers and alterers that would be impacted by a
final rule. These manufacturers buy incomplete vehicles to finish as
complete vehicles or modify previously-certified vehicles. Many of
these latter vehicles are van conversions; there are a variety of
vehicles affected.
To produce a vehicle, a final-stage manufacturer can either stay
within the incomplete vehicle document (IVD) furnished by the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer (which are typically large vehicle
manufacturers, such as GM or Ford), or the final-stage manufacturer can
work with incomplete vehicle manufacturers to enable the final-stage
manufacturer to certify to the new requirements.\292\ The final-stage
manufacturer can also certify to the standard using due care based on
an assessment of the information available to the manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\292\ For a discussion of NHTSA's certification regulations for
final stage manufacturers, see 71 FR 28168, May 15, 2006, Docket No.
NHTSA-2006-24664, Response to petitions for reconsideration of a
final rule implementing regulations pertaining to multi-stage
vehicles and to altered vehicles. The Background section of that
document provides concepts and terminology relating to the
certification of multi-stage vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While there are a substantial number of multi-stage manufacturers
that could be impacted by the proposed rule, we believe that the impact
on them would not be significant. We note that these manufacturers are
already certifying their vehicles to FMVSS No. 208's seat belt warning
system requirements that apply to the driver seating position. They are
already familiar with the equipment and manufacturing processes
involved to certify their vehicles to seat belt warning system
requirements. Further, we anticipate that final-stage manufacturers
will base their vehicles on incomplete vehicles that already have the
SBRS installed rather than install the systems themselves.
For final-stage manufacturers working with incomplete vehicles that
do not have rear seats or SBRSs already installed, we tentatively
believe that completing vehicles to meet the proposed requirements
would be practicable. The manufacturers can obtain seats and seat belt
systems (with seat belt warning system) from suppliers. NHTSA
recognizes that the suppliers might be supplying larger vehicle
manufacturers during the development and lead time period, and do not
have the capabilities to handle all of the smaller manufacturers,
including final-stage manufacturers. The rulemaking proposal accounts
for this limitation by proposing to allow final-stage manufacturers an
additional year to comply with the proposed requirements, to provide
flexibility to these small entities and reduce the economic impact of
the proposed rule on them. (See also 49 CFR 571.8(b).)
For an alterer (a person who alters by addition, substitution or
removal of components [other than readily attachable components] a
certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle other than
for resale), the impacts of the proposed rule would not be significant.
The proposed rule would allow alterers an additional year to comply
with the proposed requirements. If an alterer is removing
[[Page 61731]]
rear seats, the person making the alteration would simply have to be
careful not to affect the compliance of the seat belt warning system
for the remaining seats. (See 49 CFR 571.8(b).)
An alterer that is adding rear seats could obtain seating systems
with seat belt warning systems from seat suppliers and install the
seats on the body following the instructions of the seat supplier.
Changes may have to be made to the instrument panel area to add the
requisite visual signal, but the proposed rule provides flexibility to
manufacturers in providing the visual signal.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded
that the proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule
does not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect
under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may
prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same
aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this
chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by
Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and
administrative law address the same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]compliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules--even if not expressly preempted.
This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the
existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher
standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment
against the manufacturer--notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance
with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an
FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action
that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict
does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum
and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of action is
impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.
861 (2000).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, NHTSA has considered whether
this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law causes of
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this proposed
rule and does not foresee any potential State requirements that might
conflict with it. NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule preempt
state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor
vehicle manufacturers than that established by this proposed rule.
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not
conflict with the standards proposed in this NPRM. Without any
conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common
law tort cause of action.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action would not have a significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of
preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA
notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a
petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding
before they may file suit in court.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et. seq.), Federal agencies must obtain
approval from the OMB for each collection of information they conduct,
sponsor, or require through regulations. A person is not required to
respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid OMB control number. In this NPRM, NHTSA is
proposing new information collection requirements. The OMB has
promulgated regulations describing the process through which an agency
may request and receive clearance for its information collections.
Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for
public comment on the following: (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) how to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
[[Page 61732]]
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses. In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA
asks for public comments on the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below for a revision to NHTSA's existing clearance titled
``Consolidated Vehicle Owner's Manual Requirements for Motor Vehicles
and Motor Vehicle Equipment'' (OMB Control No. 2127-0541, which is
being forwarded to OMB for review and approval.
Title: Consolidated Vehicle Owner's Manual Requirements for Motor
Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.
OMB Control Number: 2127-0541.
Type of Request: Revision of a previously approved collection.
Type of Review Requested: Regular.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from the date of
approval.
Summary of the Collection of Information:
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the
Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA by delegation), at 49 U.S.C. 30111,
to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set
performance standards for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle
equipment. Further, the Secretary (NHTSA by delegation) is authorized,
at 49 U.S.C. 30117, to require manufacturers to provide information to
first purchasers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment
related to performance and safety in printed materials that are
attached to or accompany the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle
equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to require manufacturers
to provide certain specified safety information to be readily available
to consumers and purchasers of motor vehicles and items of motor
vehicle equipment. This information is most often provided in vehicle
owners' manuals and the requirements are found in 49 CFR parts 563,
571, and 575. This information collection request only covers
requirements or requests to provide information that is not provided
verbatim in the regulation or standard. The information requirements or
requests are included in: Part 563, ``Event data recorders;'' FMVSS No.
108, ``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment;'' FMVSS No.
110, ``Tire selection and rims;'' FMVSS No. 138, ``Tire Pressure
Monitoring Systems;'' FMVSS No. 202a, ``Head restraints;'' FMVSS No.
205, ``Glazing materials;'' FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash
protection;'' FMVSS No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages;'' FMVSS
No. 213, ``Child restraint systems;'' FMVSS No. 225; ``Child restraint
anchorage systems:'' FMVSS No. 226, ``Ejection mitigation;'' FMVSS No.
303, ``Fuel System Integrity of Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles;''
Sec. 575.103, ``Truck-camper loading;'' Sec. 575.104, ``Uniform tire
quality grading standards;'' and Sec. 575.105, ``Vehicle rollover.''
NHTSA is seeking approval from OMB for a revision of this currently
approved collection.\293\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ For a full description of the currently approved
information collection, please see the 60-day notice NHTSA published
on February 22, 2022 (87 FR 9787) and the 30-day notice NHTSA
published on October 14, 2022 (87 FR 62489).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this NPRM, we propose requiring that the owner's manual describe
the vehicle's seat belt warning system features, including the
location, format, and meaning of the visual warnings. We also propose
that the owner's manual include instructions on how to make any manual
electrical connections for readily removable seats. The need for the
proposed collection is discussed in Section X.C.7. If the proposed
requirements are made final, we will ensure we obtain OMB approval for
the proposed information collection prior to the effective date of the
final rule.
Description of the likely respondents: Vehicle manufacturers.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 52.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 10,172.
This revision would increase the estimated annual burden hours for
FMVSS No. 208 by 1,544 hours to 4,294 hours (1,544 hours + 2,750 hours)
and the total estimated annual burden hours to 10,172. The change in
burden reflects changes as a result of the rulemaking requiring the
development of new information for the owner's manual amortized over
the 3 years the information collection is approved for. NHTSA believes
all manufacturers already have the engineering staff on hand needed to
write the required instructions, if not already available, which they
will accomplish in the regular performance of their duties. More
details on the ICR and burden calculations are found in the 30-day
notice NHTSA published on October 14, 2022 (87 FR 62489).
Table 28 provides a summary of the estimated hour burden and
associated labor costs.
Table 28--Estimated Annual Hour Burden and Associated Labor Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
responses Estimated
Number of annually Estimated total annual
Part/section Brief title respondents (i.e., number total annual labor costs at
annually owner's burden hours $50.44/hour
manuals)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
563........................... Event Data 22 9,405,000 203 $10,239
Recorders.
571.108....................... Lighting--VHAD.. 34 9,405,000 383 19,319
571.108....................... Lighting--SABs.. 22 15,048,000 613 30,920
571.110....................... Tire Selection 0 0 0 0
and Rims.
571.138....................... Tire Pressure 22 18,810,000 438 22,093
Monitoring.
571.202a...................... Head Restraints. 22 18,810,000 876 44,185
571.205....................... Glazing......... 34 19,140 176 8,877
571.208....................... Crash Protection 22 19,360,000 4,294 216,589
571.210....................... Belt Anchors.... 22 18,810,000 438 22,093
571.213....................... Child Restraints 22 968,000 20 1,009
571.225....................... Child Restraint 22 18,810,000 876 44,185
Anchorages.
571.226....................... Ejection 22 18,810,000 1,205 60,755
Mitigation.
571.303....................... CNG Fuel Systems 15 22,000 18.00 908
575.103....................... Truck-Camper 18 2,542,100 35.00 1,765
Loading.
575.104....................... Tire Quality.... 34 15,243,030 579.00 29,205
[[Page 61733]]
575.105....................... Utility Vehicles 22 2,970,000 18.00 908
-------------------------------
Totals.................... ................ .............. .............. 10,172 513,050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no proposed recordkeeping requirements associated with
this collection of information.
Estimated total annual costs of the proposed collection of
information: $8,726,501.
The FMVSS No. 208 seat belt reminder system owner's manual
information requirements would require an estimated additional 4 pages
to cover the general system information and the information on manual
electrical connections for readily removable rear seats. The only cost
associated with publishing this information would be the cost of
printing the required text. NHTSA estimates there are 17,600,000 new
vehicles each year that include the FMVSS No. 208 occupant crash
protection information in the owner's manual. Therefore, the estimated
annual cost to manufacturers would be increased by $755,040 (4 pages x
300 words per page x $0.00013 per word x .25 cost factor x 1.1
production factor x 17,600,000 manuals) bringing the total estimated
annual cost to $8,726,501.
The total annual cost to the respondents for the currently approved
collection of information published in vehicles' owner's manuals is
summarized in table 29 below. More details on the ICR and cost
calculations are found in the 30-day notice NHTSA published on October
14, 2022 (87 FR 62489).
Table 29--Estimated Annual Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Part/section Brief title total costs to
respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
563............................ Event Data Recorders... $30,566
571.108........................ Lighting--VHAD......... 38,208
571.108........................ Lighting--SABs......... 244,530
571.110........................ Tire Selection and Rims 0
571.138........................ Tire Pressure 244,530
Monitoring Systems.
571.202a....................... Head Restraints........ 733,590
571.205........................ Glazing................ 131
571.208........................ Occupant Crash 4,152,720
Protection.
571.210........................ Seat Belt Assembly 244,530
Anchors.
571.213........................ Child Restraints 15,730
Systems.
571.225........................ Child Restraints 943,800
anchorage systems.
571.226........................ Ejection Mitigation.... 1,833,975
571.303........................ Fuel System Integrity 36
of Compressed Natural
Gas Vehicles.
575.103........................ Truck-Camper Loading... 39,657
575.104........................ Uniform Tire Quality 193,205
Grading Standards.
575.105........................ Vehicle Rollover....... 11,293
---------------
Total Costs................ ....................... 8,726,501
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please submit any comments, identified by the docket number in the
heading of this document, by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section of this document to NHTSA and OMB. Although comments may be
submitted during the entire comment period, comments received within 30
days of publication are most useful.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as SAE (formerly, the
Society of Automotive Engineers). The NTTAA directs this agency to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
While the agency is not aware of any voluntary standards that exist
regarding the seat belt warnings contemplated in
[[Page 61734]]
this proposed rule, the agency has examined relevant regulations in
other countries, such as the European Union standard ECE R16. As
discussed above, although we are not aware of any foreign regulations
that require seat belt warnings for the front outboard passenger or
rear seat belts or for the driver seat on small buses, we believe that
requiring seat belt warnings for these seating positions and for the
driver seats on small buses meets a safety need and is practicable.
Severability
The issue of severability of FMVSSs is addressed in 49 CFR 571.9.
It provides that if any FMVSS or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the part and the
application of that standard to other persons or circumstances is
unaffected. NHTSA seeks comment on the issue of severability.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) (UMRA)
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditures by States, local
or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of
1995) in any one year. Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross
domestic product price deflator for 2022 results in $177 million
(111.416/75.324 = 1.48). The assessment may be included in conjunction
with other assessments, as it is here.
UMRA requires the agency to select the ``least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule.'' As discussed above, the agency considered alternatives
to the final rule and has concluded that the requirements are the most
cost-effective alternatives that achieve the objectives of the rule.
The proposed rule on SBRS is not likely to result in expenditures
by State, local or tribal governments of more than $100 million
annually. However, it is estimated to result in the expenditure by
automobile manufacturers and/or their suppliers by approximately $168
million annually. The estimated costs are discussed in Section XIV and
the PRIA.
We have tentatively concluded that the requirements we are
proposing in this NPRM are the most cost-effective alternatives that
achieve the objectives of the rule.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and E.O. 13563 require each agency to write
all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain
language includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of
their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. 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).
XVII. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number indicated in this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We 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. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
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 upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish the Docket 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, the Docket will
return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
You should submit a redacted ``public version'' of your comment
(including redacted versions of any additional documents or
attachments) to the docket using any of the methods identified under
ADDRESSES. This ``public version'' of your comment should contain only
the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and
from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed
has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to do
this.
You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment
directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential
treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set
[[Page 61735]]
forth the information specified in part 512. This includes the
materials for which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in
more detail below); supporting information, pursuant to Sec. 512.8;
and a certificate, pursuant to Sec. 512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A.
You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
unredacted ``confidential version'' of the information for which you
are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.6, the words
``ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' or ``CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS'' (as applicable) must
appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be
confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the
page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information
for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: ``[ ].''
You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
redacted ``public version'' of the information for which you are
seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.5(a)(2), the
redacted ``public version'' should include redactions of any
information for which you are seeking confidential treatment (i.e., the
only information that should be unredacted is information for which you
are not seeking confidential treatment).
NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable
method for submitting confidential business information to the agency
under part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for
confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be
sent to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at
[email protected]. You may either submit your request via email
or request a secure file transfer link. If you are submitting the
request via email, please also email a courtesy copy of the request to
John Piazza at [email protected].
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 https://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.
Appendix A--Front Outboard Seat Belt Warnings--Additional Data
In Section XI we looked at the durations of the visual and audible
seat belt warnings for the driver and front outboard passenger seats
provided on new (MY 2022) vehicles. There we tabulated warning
durations by the proportion of total projected sales of the vehicle
models within each durational range. In this appendix, we provide a
brief discussion of, and data for, the warning durations provided in
new vehicles tabulated by the number of vehicle models within each
durational range. The results are largely the same but do show some
differences. The differences could be attributed to lack of projected
sales data for some vehicle models, but we provide other potential
explanations below.
For example, when tabulated by vehicle model instead of as a share
of total projected sales, a larger proportion of vehicles have a very
short duration audible seat belt warning. As we saw in the discussion
in Section XI, only a very small proportion of new vehicles projected
to be sold have a very short-duration audible warning lasting six or
eight seconds (about 1% for the driver warning, and .3% for the
passenger warning). However, the share of vehicles with such short
warnings is substantially higher when tabulated as a proportion of
vehicle models (about 17% for the driver warning and 14% for the
passenger warning) (see Figure A.1). This could be because these
vehicles are not expected to have a high sales volume.
The same situation holds for longer duration audible warnings. A
large proportion of the vehicles projected to be sold provide a warning
that lasts at least 1.5 min (90 + sec) (92% for the driver warning, 76%
for the passenger warning), while the share of vehicles with this
warning duration is substantially lower when tabulated as a proportion
of vehicle models (about 80% for both the driver and passenger
warnings) (see Figure A.1). In this case these vehicle models are
likely high sales volume vehicles. Similar differences are also
apparent for the visual warning. See Figure A.2.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 61736]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.005
We believe the analysis in terms of sales volume is more
meaningful, because that reflects the number of vehicles that are
actually equipped with--and occupants that are actually exposed to--
such warnings. For example, while only a small proportion of vehicles
(about 1% by sales volume) have a very short-duration driver audible
warning (six or eight seconds), these vehicles account for about 17% of
vehicle models for which we had data. That is, very short warnings
appear to be provided in a relatively high proportion of small-volume
vehicle models. However, the sales volume data better reflects how
common these short duration warnings are--relatively not that common in
the sense that only a small proportion of new vehicles sold have these
very short duration warnings.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
Proposed Regulatory Text
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration proposes to amend 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
Subpart B--Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
2. Amend Sec. 571.101 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph S5.5.6; and
0
b. Revising table 1 and table 2.
The revisions read as follows.
Sec. 571.101 Standard No. 101; Controls and displays.
* * * * *
S5.5.6(a) Except as provided in S5.5.6(b) and (c), messages
displayed in a common space may be cancelable automatically or by the
driver.
(b) Telltales for high beams, turn signal, low tire pressure, and
passenger air bag off, and telltales for which the color red is
required in table 1 to Sec. 571.101 must not be cancelable while the
underlying condition for their activation exists.
(c) Telltales for the seat belts must not be cancellable by the
driver before the minimum durations are satisfied but may be
cancellable automatically as specified in FMVSS No. 208.
* * * * *
[[Page 61737]]
Table 1 to Sec. 571.101 Controls, Telltales, and Indicators With
Illumination or Color Requirements \1\
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.006
[[Page 61738]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.007
[[Page 61739]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.008
[[Page 61740]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.009
Notes:
\1\ An identifier is shown in this table if it is required for a
control for which an illumination requirement exists or if it is
used for a telltale for which a color requirement exists. If a line
appears in column 2 and column 3, the control, telltale, or
indicator is required to be identified, however the form of the
identification is the manufacturer's option. Telltales are not
considered to have an illumination requirement, because by
definition the telltale must light when the condition for its
activation exists.
\2\ Additional requirements in FMVSS 108.
\3\ Framed areas of the symbol may be solid; solid areas may be
framed.
\4\ Blue may be blue-green. Red may be red-orange.
\5\ Symbols employing four lines instead of five may also be
used.
\6\ The pair of arrows is a single symbol. When the controls or
telltales for left and right turn operate independently, however,
the two arrows may be considered separate symbols and be spaced
accordingly.
\7\ Not required when arrows of turn signal telltales that
otherwise operate independently flash simultaneously as hazard
warning telltale.
\8\ Separate identification is not required if function is
combined with master lighting switch.
\9\ Refer to FMVSS 105 or FMVSS 135, as appropriate, for
additional specific requirements for brake telltale labeling and
color. If a single telltale is used to indicate more than one brake
system condition, the brake system malfunction identifier must be
used.
\10\ Requirement effective September 1, 2011.
\11\ A manufacturer may use this telltale in flashing mode to
indicate ESC operation.
\12\ This symbol may also be used to indicate the malfunction of
related systems/functions, including traction control, trailer
stability assist, comer brake control, and other similar functions
that use throttle and/or individual wheel torque control to operate
and share common components with ESC.
\13\ Combination of the engine oil pressure symbol and the
engine coolant temperature symbol in a single telltale is permitted.
\14\ Use when engine control is separate from the key locking
system.
\15\ If the speedometer is graduated in both miles per hour and
in kilometers per hour, the scales must be identified ``MPH'' and
``km/h'', respectively, in any combination of upper- and lowercase
letters.
\16\ The letters `P', `R', `N', and `D' are considered separate
identifiers for the individual gear positions. Their locations
within the vehicle, and with respect to each other, are governed by
FMVSS 102. The letter `D' may be replaced by another alphanumeric
character or symbol chosen by the manufacturer.
\17\ Required only for FMVSS 138 compliant vehicles.
[[Page 61741]]
\18\ Alternatively, either low tire pressure telltale may be
used to indicate a TPMS malfunction. See FMVSS 138.
\19\ Required only for vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2007.
\20\ A symbol may be used at the manufacturer's option as
provided in FMVSS No. 208 S7.5.
\21\ These are the colors for the symbols if symbols are chosen.
If a symbol is used to indicate to the driver how many or which rear
seat belts are in use, the color of the illuminated symbol must be
green. If symbols are used to indicate to the driver how many or
which rear seat belts are not in use the color of the illuminated
symbol must be red. See FMVSS 208 S7.5(c)(1).
Table 2 to Sec. 571.101 Identifiers for Controls, Telltales and
Indicators With No Color or Illumination Requirements
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.010
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
Notes:
1. Use when engine control is separate from the key locking
system.
2. Any combination of upper- or lowercase letters may be used.
3. Framed areas may be filled.
4. If a line appears in Column 2 and Column 3, the Control,
Telltale or Indicator is required to be identified, however the form
of the identification is the manufacturer's option.
5. Separate identification not required if function is combined
with Master Lighting Switch.
0
3. Amend Sec. 571.208 by:
0
a. Adding paragraphs S4.1.5.7, S4.1.5.7.1, S4.1.5.8, S4.1.5.8.1,
S4.2.8, S4.2.8.1, S4.2.9, S4.2.9.1, S4.4.3.4, S4.4.3.4.1, S4.4.3.5,
S4.4.3.5.1, and S4.5.1.(f)(3);
0
b. Revising paragraph S4.5.3.3(b); and
0
c. Adding paragraph S7.5.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
* * * * *
S4.1.5.7. Front seat belt warnings for passenger cars manufactured
on or after [insert date the first September 1 that is one year after
the date of publication of a final rule].
S4.1.5.7.1 Any front outboard designated seating position and any
inboard designated seating position for which a seat belt warning is
specified in S4.1.5.6 shall comply with S7.5.
S4.1.5.8. Rear seat belt warnings for passenger cars manufactured
on or after [insert date the first September 1 that is two years after
the date of publication of a final rule].
S4.1.5.8.1. All rear designated seating positions, except in law
enforcement vehicles, shall comply with S7.5.
* * * * *
S4.2.8 Front seat belt warnings for trucks and multipurpose
passenger
[[Page 61742]]
vehicles manufactured on or after [insert date the first September 1
that is one year after the date of publication of a final rule] with a
GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,00 lb) or less.
S4.2.8.1. All front outboard designated seating positions certified
to a compliance option requiring a seat belt shall comply with S7.5.
S4.2.9 Rear seat belt warnings for trucks and multipurpose
passenger vehicles manufactured on or after [insert date the first
September 1 that is two years after the date of publication of a final
rule] with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,00 lb) or less.
S4.2.9.1. All rear designated seating positions certified to a
compliance option requiring a seat belt, except law enforcement
vehicles, shall comply with S7.5.
* * * * *
S4.4.3.4 Front seat belt warnings for buses manufactured on or
after [insert date the first September 1 that is one year after the
date of publication of a final rule] with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000
lb) or less.
S4.4.3.4.1 All front outboard designated seating positions shall
comply with S7.5.
S4.4.3.5 Rear seat belt warnings for buses manufactured on or after
[insert date the first September 1 that is two years after the date of
publication of a final rule] with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or
less.
S4.4.3.5.1 All rear designated seating positions certified to a
compliance option requiring a seat belt, except for school buses and
law enforcement vehicles, shall comply with S7.5.
* * * * *
S4.5.1 Labeling and owner's manual information.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) The owner's manual (which includes information provided by the
vehicle manufacturer to the consumer, whether in digital or printed
form) for any vehicle equipped with a seat belt warning system must
include an accurate description of the system features and warning
signals, including the location and format of the visual warnings, in
an easily understandable format. The description shall include
information on when the different features of the warning system will
activate and how to interpret the visual warnings. For vehicles with
any rear designated seating position that is a readily removable seat
(a seat designed to be easily removed and replaced by means installed
by the manufacturer for that purpose) equipped with manual electrical
connections that are utilized by the rear seat belt warning system, the
owner's manual (which includes information provided by the vehicle
manufacturer to the consumer, whether in digital or printed form) must
include a description of the purpose of the connection, instructions on
how to achieve a proper connection in an easily understandable format,
and a description of how not achieving a proper connection may affect
the proper functioning of the system.
* * * * *
S4.5.3.3 An automatic seat belt furnished pursuant to S4.5.3 shall:
* * * * *
(b) Conform to the seat belt warning system requirements of S7.5.
* * * * *
S7.5 Seat belt warning systems for front outboard seat belt
assemblies in vehicles manufactured on or after [insert date the first
September 1 that is one year after the date of publication of a final
rule] provided in accordance with the requirements of S4.1.5.7, S4.2.8,
S4.4.3.4, and S4.5.3.3, and rear seat belt assemblies in vehicle
manufactured on or after [insert date the first September 1 that is two
years after the date of publication of a final rule] provided in
accordance with the requirements of S4.1.5.8, S4.2.9, S4.4.3.5, and
S4.5.3.3.
(a) Definitions for S7.5. (1) A manual seat belt is not in use when
the seat belt latch mechanism is not fastened. A seat belt is in use
when the seat belt latch mechanism is fastened. An automatic seat belt
is not in use when the seat belt latch mechanism is not fastened or, if
the automatic belt is non-detachable, the emergency release mechanism
is in the released position. If the automatic seat belt is motorized,
whether the seat belt is in use is determined when the seat belt
webbing is in its locked protective mode at the anchorage point.
(2) A front outboard passenger seating position is occupied when an
occupant or dummy that weighs 46.7 kg (103 lb) or greater and is 139.7
cm (55 inches) tall or taller is seated in the seat.
(3) A rear seating position is occupied when an occupant or dummy
that weighs 21 kg (46.5 lb) or greater and is 114 cm (45 inches) tall
or taller is seated in the seat.
(4) A warning cycle for an intermittent audible warning consists of
period(s) when the warning is active at the chime frequency or
continuously, and of inactive period(s). A warning cycle begins with an
active period and is 30 seconds in duration.
(5) Chime frequency means the repetition rate for an intermittent
audible warning when the warning is active.
(6) Duty cycle means the total amount of time an intermittent
audible warning is active during a warning cycle at the chime frequency
or continuously, divided by the total warning cycle duration (30
seconds).
(b) Front outboard seat belt warning system. For vehicles subject
to this requirement, a driver's designated seating position and any
front outboard passenger designating seating position must be equipped
with an audio-visual seat belt warning meeting the requirements of
S7.5(b)(1) through (5) when tested in accordance with S7.5(d).
(1) Activation and duration--(i) Start of trip warning. An audio-
visual warning must activate when the ignition switch is placed in the
``on'' or ``start'' position if the seat is occupied and the seat belt
is not in use. The audio-visual warning must continue until the seat
belt that triggered the warning is in use. The audio-visual warning is
otherwise not permitted to activate except to comply with
S7.5(b)(1)(ii).
(ii) Change-of-status warning. An audio-visual warning must
activate when the ignition switch is in the ``on'' or ``start''
position, the vehicle is in forward or reverse drive mode, and the
status of the seat belt changes from in use to not in use, unless a
front door on the same side of the vehicle as the seat belt triggering
the warning is open, in which case a warning is not required and the
system may consider this as a new trip with respect to that seat belt
and reset the warning system. The audio-visual warning must continue
until the seat belt that triggered the warning is in use.
(2) Visual warning. (i) If there is a driver's designated seating
position, the visual warning for the driver's seat belt must be visible
from the driver's seat and the visual warning for the front outboard
passenger seat belt must be visible from the driver's seat and the
front outboard passenger seat.
(ii) If there is not a driver's designated seating position, the
visual warning for each outboard passenger designated seating position
must be visible from each outboard passenger designated seating
position.
(iii) The visual warning may be continuous or intermittent and must
display the identifying symbol or the words specified in table 2 of
FMVSS 101.
(iv) For telltales associated with multiple front outboard seats,
the seat with which each telltale is associated must be clearly
recognizable to a driver and to any front outboard passenger.
[[Page 61743]]
(3) Audible warning. The audible warning may be continuous or
intermittent. If intermittent, the audible warning when active must be
continuous or have a chime frequency of at least 0.5 Hz and a duty
cycle of at least 0.2. The same audible warning may be used for all
seats.
(4) Cancellation. The warning must not be able to be canceled or
deactivated.
(5) Override. The warning must not be overridden by other warnings.
(c) Rear passenger seat belt warning system. For vehicles subject
to this requirement, all rear designated seating positions must be
equipped with a warning system that conforms to the requirements of
S7.5(c)(1) through (6) when tested in accordance with S7.5(d).
(1) Activation and duration--(i) Start of trip warning. A visual
warning must activate when the ignition switch is placed in the ``on''
or ``start'' position and last for at least 60 seconds, except for
systems certified to S7.5(c)(2)(i)(B) when there are no occupied rear
seats with a seat belt that is not in use.
(ii) Change-of-status warning. An audio-visual warning must
activate when the ignition switch is in the ``on'' or ``start''
position, the vehicle is in forward or reverse drive mode, and the
status of the seat belt changes from in use to not in use, unless any
rear door is open, in which case a change-of-status warning is not
required and the system may consider this situation as a new trip with
respect to that seat belt and reset the warning system. The audio-
visual warning must last for at least 30 seconds or until the seat belt
that triggered the warning is in use.
(2) Visual warning. (i) The visual warning may be continuous or
intermittent and must consist of symbols or text visible from the
driver's seat indicating:
(A) How many or which rear seat belts are in use;
(B) For the occupied rear seats, how many or which rear seat belts
are not in use;
(C) For the occupied rear seats, how many or which rear seat belts
are in use and how many or which rear seat belts are not in use; or
(D) (For the change-of-status warning only) that a seating position
experienced a seat belt change-of-status from in use to not in use.
(ii) The warning must not indicate a seat belt is not in use for an
unoccupied seat.
(iii) If symbols are used to indicate to the driver how many or
which rear seat belts are in use, the color of the illuminated symbols
must be green. If symbols are used to indicate to the driver how many
or which rear seat belts are not in use, the color of the illuminated
symbols must be red.
(iv) If text is used to indicate to the driver how many or which
rear seat belts are in use or not in use, the text must contain the
words ``rear belt(s) in use'' or ``rear belt(s) not in use.''
(v) The visual warning must not be overridden by other visual
warnings.
(3) Audible warning. The audible warning may be continuous or
intermittent. If intermittent, inactive periods longer than 3 seconds
will not be counted toward the total duration of the audible warning.
The same audible warning may be used for all rear seats, and the same
audible warning may be used for the rear as for the front.
(4) Cancellation. The warning must not be able to be canceled or
deactivated.
(5) Override. The warning must not be overridden by other warnings.
(6) Seat electrical connection requirements. Any rear designated
seating position consisting of a readily removable seat (a seat
designed to be easily removed and replaced by means installed by the
manufacturer for that purpose) that is equipped with electrical
connections utilized by the rear seat belt warning system must either--
(i) Automatically connect the electrical connections when the seat
is put in place; or
(ii) If a manual electrical connection is required, the connectors
must be readily accessible.
(7) Electrical connection warning signal. Vehicles that provide a
visual warning according to S7.5(c)(2)(i)(B) and are equipped with any
readily removable rear seat(s) (a seat designed to be easily removed
and replaced by means installed by the manufacturer for that purpose)
must, when the ignition switch is placed in the ``on'' or ``start''
position, provide an intermittent visual warning visible from the
driver's seat if a seat has been installed and a proper electrical
connection has not been made. The visual warning must remain active
until all the rear seat electrical connections are properly made.
(d) Test procedures--(1) In general. (i) If testing with any
designated seating position occupied, use the seating procedures in
S7.5(d)(2) for front designated seating positions and the seating
procedures in S7.5(d)(3) for rear designated seating positions.
(ii) Place the ignition switch in the ``on'' or ``start'' position
and verify that the seat belt warnings function as specified in S7.5(b)
and S7.5(c), for any combination of seat belt use or seat occupancy at
any designated seating position(s).
(2) Seating procedures for front designated seating positions--(i)
Anthropomorphic test devices used for testing. The anthropomorphic test
device (test dummy) is any of the anthropomorphic test devices
specified in part 572 that meet the criteria specified in S7.5(a)(2).
(ii) Seating procedure. (A) With the seat back in the
manufacturer's nominal design riding position, any other seat
adjustments in any position, and any adjustable seat belt anchorages in
any position, seat the test dummy such that the midsagittal plane of
the dummy is vertical and within 10 mm of the seat
centerline, with the torso and pelvis in contact with the seat back.
(B) At the option of the manufacturer (irrevocably selected prior
to or at the time of certification of the vehicle), instead of using
test dummies, a human being (dressed in a cotton T-shirt, full length
cotton trousers, and sneakers) may be used whose weight and height
(including this clothing) meet the criteria specified in S7.5(a)(2).
The person should be seated in order to match, to the extent possible,
the final physical position specified in S7.5(d)(2)(ii)(A).
(3) Seating procedures for rear designated seating positions--(i)
Anthropomorphic test devices used for testing. The anthropomorphic test
device is any of the anthropomorphic test devices specified in part 572
that meet the criteria specified in S7.5(a)(3).
(ii) Seating procedure. (A) With the seat back in the
manufacturer's nominal design riding position, any other seat
adjustments in any position, and any adjustable anchorages in any
position, seat the test dummy such that the midsagittal plane of the
dummy is vertical and within 10 mm of the seat centerline,
with the torso and pelvis in contact with the seat back; or
(B) At the option of the manufacturer (irrevocably selected prior
to or at the time of certification of the vehicle), instead of using
test dummies, a human being (dressed in a cotton T-shirt, full length
cotton trousers, and sneakers) may be used whose weight and height
(including this clothing) meet the criteria specified in S7.5(a)(3).
The person should be seated in order to match, to the extent possible,
the final physical position specified in S7.5(d)(3)(ii)(A).
* * * * *
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95, 501.4, and
501.5.
Ann Carlson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-18413 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P