[Federal Register: November 5, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 214)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67491-67494]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05no02-10]
[[Page 67491]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 575
[Docket No. NHTSA-02-10053]
RIN 2127-AI65
Consumer Information; Safety Rating Program for Child Restraint
Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 14(g) of the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act requires that, by
November 1, 2002, a final rule be issued to establish a child restraint
safety rating consumer information program to provide practicable,
readily understandable, and timely information to consumers for use in
making informed decisions in the purchase of child restraint systems
(CRS). In response to this mandate, NHTSA is establishing such a
program. The program will not impose any binding legal obligations on
any child restraint manufacturer regarding the generation or
distribution of information.
The details of the new program are set forth in a companion
document being published today in the Federal Register. The agency is
establishing an ease of use rating program at this time. This rating
program will enhance the safety of children by informing consumers
about the features of child restraints that make child restraints
easier to use, and evaluating each child restraint on those features.
The agency anticipates that the program will result in more child
restraints being used correctly. NHTSA is also evaluating whether to
establish two complementary consumer information programs. The first
would be based on child restraint dynamic performance. The second would
involve expanding the agency's New Car Assessment Program to include
consumer information on how vehicles do in protecting child occupants.
The agency will be conducting two pilot programs in these areas to
assess how to proceed in these programs.
DATES: The amendments made in this rule are effective January 6, 2003.
If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition
must be received by December 20, 2002.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, Room 5220, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC,
20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For issues related to the ease of use
rating program, you may call Lori Miller of the Office of Planning and
Consumer Standards, at (202) 366-2191. For issues related to the pilot
programs for the dynamic performance of child restraints or for the New
Car Assessment Program, call Nathaniel Beuse or Brian Park,
respectively, of the Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-
1740. For legal issues, call Deirdre Fujita of the Office of Chief
Counsel, at (202) 366-2992. You may send mail to these officials at the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress has directed the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a child restraint
safety rating system that is practicable and understandable (Section 14
(g) of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation (TREAD) Act, November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat.
1800) and that will help consumers to make informed decisions when
purchasing child restraints. Section 14(g) reads as follows:
(g) Child restraint safety rating program. No later than 12 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Transportation shall issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to
establish a child restraint safety rating consumer information
program to provide practicable, readily understandable, and timely
information to consumers for use in making informed decisions in the
purchase of child restraints. No later than 24 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act the Secretary shall issue a final rule
establishing a child restraint safety rating program and providing
other consumer information which the Secretary determines would be
useful [to] consumers who purchase child restraint systems.
NHTSA issued an NPRM (66 FR 56048; November 6, 2001) and a
companion request for comments on the details of the new program (66 FR
56146; November 6, 2001). Nineteen comments were submitted in response.
Pursuant to the TREAD Act, the agency is issuing this final rule.
In this final rule, the agency establishes a program for rating the
ease-of-use of child restraints. This final rule accompanies the
agency's Response to Comments, Notice of Final Decision published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. That document addresses the
comments we received on the ratings program, and sets forth the
complete details of the program established today.
The program furthers the agency's efforts to harmonize its
regulations internationally where possible. The program is modeled
after the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia's (ICBC's) ease of
use program, which evaluates all child restraints sold in Canada.
NHTSA's program uses similar ratings categories as those of the ICBC,
and the features that are rated and the criteria for rating the
restraints are based on ICBC's features and criteria.
The ratings program established today is just a first step towards
providing consumers more information about child occupant protection
for use in making informed purchasing decisions. NHTSA believes that
the most effective consumer information system would be one that gives
the consumer a combination of information about child restraints' ease
of use and dynamic performance, and vehicle performance in crash tests.
The ease of use program is sufficiently developed at this time to
proceed, whereas programs evaluating the dynamic performance of child
restraints and vehicles are not ready for implementation at this time.
The Notice of Final Decision explains that NHTSA will conduct a
pilot test program of child restraints using new test devices and
procedures incorporated into the Federal motor vehicle safety standard
for child restraint systems. We will also conduct a pilot test program
involving the placement of child restraints in vehicles tested in the
agency's New Car Assessment Program in MY 2003 and 2004. The pilot
programs will evaluate the performance of child restraints and the
ability of vehicles to provide child occupant protection. The agency
will evaluate the results of the two pilot programs to decide how the
ratings programs on the dynamic performance of child restraints and
vehicles should proceed.
In comments to the Request for Comments, the Juvenile Products
Manufacturers Association (JPMA) suggested that Congress wanted NHTSA
to establish the ratings program ``by rulemaking in order to ensure
that public notice and an opportunity to comment would be provided not
only for the initial establishment of the program, but also when
subsequent changes to the program are contemplated.'' JPMA also stated
that, to fulfill the mandate of section 14(g) of the TREAD Act, NHTSA
must assure the public that it will not make changes to the ratings
program without providing the public an opportunity to comment
[[Page 67492]]
and providing the industry time to change their products.
It is our current policy, and one generally followed in the past,
to seek public input when establishing new consumer information ratings
programs. Public comment on the performance criteria and test protocols
to be used in the programs assists the agency in developing consumer
information programs that are readily understandable to consumers and
helpful to their purchasing decisions. Generally, the agency has sought
comment through issuing a Request for Comments or by holding public
meetings on possible consumer information programs under consideration,
rather than issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The agency
has not deemed it necessary formally to propose particular performance
criteria and procedures through an NPRM because the purpose of the
consumer information programs is to rate products. There is no minimum
level of performance specified as in the FMVSS, and the performance
criteria and test protocols impose no legally binding obligations on
manufacturers and are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations.
However, the Request for Comments we have issued and the meetings we
have held have included descriptions of the performance criteria and
test protocols under consideration. In our view, there is no
substantive difference between providing for that notice and comment
through these procedures or through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The TREAD Act requires that we initially establish this consumer
information program through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a Final
Rule. It is silent as to the process contemplated for any substantive
changes to the program in the future. Although the agency often seeks
public comment on significant substantive changes in consumer
information programs, the agency does not believe a formal process is
required. The agency may determine, based on experience or testing,
that changes in the program are necessary to provide more descriptive
or more accurate information to the public. The agency is concerned
that a prolonged comment period during the course of a program could
unduly delay the public's access to the best information available with
which to make purchase decisions. While Congress acted to ensure that
this consumer information program was developed with public comment, we
do not believe that Congress intended for there to be delays in
providing ``timely information'' by requiring a full rulemaking process
when experience has shown that the quality of the information available
could be markedly enhanced.
Nor do we agree that the TREAD Act provision mandates that we
provide leadtime for the industry to change their products in order to
enhance performance in our consumer information program. Unlike the
issuance or amending of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, our
consumer information programs impose no binding legal obligations on
child restraint or vehicle manufacturers, and are therefore not
constrained by the practicability concerns addressed through the
statutory mandates applicable to the FMVSSs. Manufacturers may sell
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment regardless of how well or
poorly the product performs in our consumer information program, as
long as it meets the requirements of any applicable FMVSS.
This issue illustrates the difference between making changes to our
consumer information programs and making changes to the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. The consumer information programs are
intended to identify distinctions between products and provide the
public with useful and timely information about products currently
available to them to assist their purchase decisions. The programs
don't require product manufacturers to make any changes to their
products. If the manufacturers decide nevertheless to make changes,
they can make their own decisions about the timing, nature and extent
of any changes. Delaying the implementation of new procedures and the
dissemination of timely and useful information about currently
available products would undermine, rather than further, the intent of
the consumer information programs. The FMVSSs, on the other hand, are
intended to ensure that all products subject to them meet minimum
performance criteria in accordance with a uniform schedule set by the
agency. Accordingly, sufficient leadtime is necessary to allow
manufacturers to change their products in response to the new FMVSS
requirements.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal Governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
This document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. Since
this final rule will not establish a rule imposing binding legal
obligations on any party, it does not involve a significant rule within
the meaning of that Executive Order or the Department of
Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. Further,
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not required under these
circumstances. NHTSA is issuing this final rule and a companion
response to comments, instead of a response to comments alone, because
section 14(g) of the TREAD Act expressly requires the issuance of a
final rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 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 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
[[Page 67493]]
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. For the reasons noted above in the section
on Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, I
certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this final rule does not involve a rule that will
have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a
regulation with federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with federalism
implications and that preempts State law unless the agency consults
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
regulation.
The agency has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and has
determined that it does not involve a rule that would have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local
officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The final rule will not have any substantial effects on the States, or
on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local
officials.
E. Civil Justice Reform
This final rule does not involve a rule that would have any
retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain
a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is
not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the
state requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies
only to vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets
forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing,
amending, or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That
section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration
or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in
court.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final
rule does not require any collection of information.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272),
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. 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 the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), a worldwide voluntary
federation of ISO member bodies. The NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The NTTAA does not apply to this final rule since it does not
involve regulatory activities. The final rule will not impose binding
legal obligations on any party. Nonetheless, NHTSA looked for but did
not find voluntary consensus standards for an ease of use ratings
program developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
We did find and consider work being done by the ISO Usability Task
Force on the ease of use of child restraints using ISOFIX systems.
(ISOFIX refers to a child restraint anchorage system consisting of two
lower anchor bars at the intersection of a vehicle seat cushion and
vehicle seat back. A related anchorage system is what is commonly
referred to as the LATCH system in the U.S.\1\) The ISO task force is
in the early stages of exploring a possible ISOFIX ease of use ratings
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``LATCH'' stands for ``Lower Anchors and Tethers for
Children,'' a term that was developed by child restraint
manufacturers and retailers to refer to the standardized child
restraint anchorage system required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems (49 CFR Sec.
571.225). This system has two lower anchorages and one tether
anchorage. Each lower anchorage includes a rigid round rod or bar
onto which the connector of a child restraint system can be snapped.
The bars will be located at the intersection of the vehicle seat
cushion and seat back. The upper anchorage is a fixture to which the
tether of a child restraint system can be hooked. The draft ISOFIX
system would not include the upper tether anchorage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $ 100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
This final rule will not require any expenditures by State, local,
or tribal governments, or by private parties.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575
Consumer information, Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 575 is amended as
follows:
[[Page 67494]]
PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION
1. The heading for part 575 is revised to read as set forth above.
2. The authority citation for part 575 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, and
30168, and Pub.L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.
3. The heading for subpart A is revised to read as follows:
Subpart A--Regulations; General
4. The heading for subpart B is revised to read as follows:
Subpart B--Regulations; Consumer Information Items
5. Subpart C is added to read as follows:
Subpart C--Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation Act; Consumer Information
Sec. 575.201 Child restraint performance.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has established
a program for rating the performance of child restraints. The agency
makes the information developed under this rating program available
through a variety of means, including postings on its Web site, http://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov.
Issued on October 29, 2002.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-27998 Filed 10-31-02; 2:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P