[Federal Register: February 18, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 32)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7747-7749]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18fe03-15]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 03-14477, No. 1]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The agency denies a petition for rulemaking from Mr. Ronald J.
Slaughter requesting that NHTSA initiate rulemaking to consider
requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to equip new vehicles with
instrumentation sufficient to alert vehicle drivers and nearby police
whenever the vehicles are being operated while one or more of the
occupants is unbelted. Mr. Slaughter suggested that implementation of
the requested amendment would lead to increases in the rate of safety
belt use.
The agency is denying the petition for the following reasons.
First, implementation of the requested amendment would be costly since
it would necessitate the installation of seat belt use sensors, seat
occupancy sensors, and light sources in each vehicle. Second, the
requested amendment would have limited effect on safety belt use rates
in the states whose safety belt use laws permit officers to stop a
vehicle or issue a citation for failure to use a safety belt only if
the officers also observe a separate concurrent violation. Third, the
agency is concerned about consumer acceptance of the system proposed by
the petitioner. Fourth, occupants who do not want to wear their seat
belts can easily circumvent the system by placing the seat belt behind
them or modifying the light to stay on all the time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
Sanjay Patel of the NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards.
Telephone: (202) 366-4583, facsimile: (202) 366-4329.
For legal issues, you may call Ms. Rebecca MacPherson of the NHTSA
Office of the Chief Counsel. Telephone: (202) 366-2992, facsimile:
(202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 25, 2000, Mr. Ronald J. Slaughter
submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that NHTSA consider
requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to equip new vehicles with lights
inside and outside the vehicle that would continuously burn and be
visible to the driver and to those outside the vehicle as long as all
vehicle occupants are belted. Mr. Slaughter believes that continuously
burning lights on the instrument panel would give the driver more
control over his or her passengers, reminding them to ``buckle up.''
Further, Mr. Slaughter suggested that lights visible outside the
vehicle would help police officers enforce mandatory seat belt use
laws. He believes that such lights would increase safety belt use,
assist in the identification of drunk or otherwise
[[Page 7748]]
impaired drivers, and reduce traffic crash injuries and fatalities. Mr.
Slaughter did not provide any data or other information relating to the
cost of such devices or any studies performed regarding the
effectiveness or feasibility of such a system.
NHTSA is very supportive of efforts to increase safety belt use and
agrees that the failure of many motor vehicle occupants to use safety
belts is a significant concern. The agency has expended considerable
effort and resources to improve the rate of safety belt use in the
United States. NHTSA has prepared and distributed numerous legislative
fact sheets, position papers, success stories, model laws for both seat
belts and child passenger safety, and other materials on the benefits
of mandatory seat belt use and child passenger safety laws. Agency
employees have testified, when invited by state officials, at state
legislative hearings for states considering the enactment of the belt
use laws.
Recently, at the invitation of state officials, NHTSA employees
have testified in support of attempts within various states to change
secondary enforcement laws, under which police officers must observe a
separate and distinct violation before stopping a vehicle where
occupants are not using belts, to primary enforcement laws. Primary
enforcement laws allow police officers to make stops and issue
citations for the failure to wear a seat belt without first observing
another violation unrelated to seat belt use. Presently, 18 states and
the District of Columbia have enacted such laws.
NHTSA has also established cooperative agreements with numerous
states to demonstrate that publicized enforcement of a mandatory seat
belt use law can increase seat belt use and formed formal partnerships
with many national organizations for the purpose of mobilizing their
membership to promote traffic safety in general, and seat belt and
child safety seat use in particular. The agency has produced brochures,
posters, videos, print ads, billboards, public service announcements,
and a host of other media resource materials to educate the public on
the safety benefits of seat belts. Other activities pursued by the
agency to improve belt use include programs to improve the training of
law enforcement officers, the use of child safety seat checkpoints, and
other measures designed to improve belt use and enforcement of
mandatory belt use laws.
Despite the agency's on-going efforts and interest in encouraging
full use of vehicle safety belts, NHTSA has considered and rejected two
proposals similar to Mr. Slaughter's in recent years. In both cases,
the agency reluctantly concluded that the potential safety benefits of
the proposed requirements were outweighed by other factors. On February
24, 1999 (64 FR 9118), the agency published a denial of a petition from
Mr. Les Boyd requesting that the agency consider requiring motor
vehicle manufacturers to equip new vehicles with instrumentation
sufficient to alert nearby police whenever the vehicles were being
operated with an unbelted occupant. In denying the Boyd petition, the
agency expressed three major concerns about the general use of
instrumentation to alert police. First, NHTSA explained that
implementation of the requested amendment would have been costly
because it would have necessitated the installation of sensors in each
seating position to identify unbelted occupants as well as a
transmitter in each vehicle to alert nearby police.
Second, the agency stated that it anticipated that adopting the
requested requirements would lead to only a modest increase in safety
belt usage in the majority of states with secondary seat belt use laws
because those states only permit officers to stop a vehicle or issue a
citation for an occupant's failure to use a safety belt if the officers
also observe a separate, concurrent violation. The agency further
stated that it did not anticipate that granting Mr. Boyd's petition
would lead to a substantial increase in seat belt use even in those
states whose mandatory seat belt use laws permit officers to enforce
those laws without first observing a separate, concurrent violation.
Third, NHTSA expressed reservations about the amount of identifying
information that would need to be transmitted in order for police to
determine which vehicles were being operated with unbelted occupants,
stating that the transmission of such detailed information raised
significant privacy concerns.
On November 5, 1999 (64 FR 60625), the agency denied a petition
from Carl Nash and Donald Friedman. The petitioners proposed requiring
certain inducements to fasten all occupant safety belts, such as
continuous visual reminders, audible suggestions, or interruption of
non-essential accessories such as air conditioning. In denying the
petition, the agency expressed concerns about the effectiveness of
continuous visual reminders, pointing to a lack of ``information
indicating that such a reminder would likely result in additional
safety benefits over the existing warning systems.'' The agency also
stated its opinion that NHTSA lacks the statutory authority to require
audible suggestions or system interruption. The agency reconfirmed this
opinion in the preamble to the Advanced Air Bag final rule, published
on May 12, 2000 (65 FR at 30734), as well as in a letter to Dr. Nash on
June 6, 2000.
In evaluating Mr. Slaughter's petition, we believe that there is no
apparent reason to require continuously burning lights to indicate that
all occupants are belted. First and foremost, there are no data
relating to the costs of such a system or any studies indicating its
effectiveness or feasibility. With respect to the petitioner's proposal
to require a continuously burning light positioned outside the vehicle,
the agency believes that doing so would be unlikely to enhance
appreciably the ability of police officers to determine whether
occupants are wearing their safety belts. In many cases, officers can
already see whether an occupant's shoulder belt is being worn by
looking through the vehicle's windows. We acknowledge that an
illuminated, external light would be more effective than plain visual
inspection in certain circumstances, however, such as at night, during
periods of inclement weather, or in other situations when visibility is
severely limited.
As to Mr. Slaughter's proposal to require a continuously burning
light inside the vehicle, on the dashboard, we note that the agency
presently requires vehicles to be equipped with an internal light and
an audible warning to remind the vehicle's driver to fasten his or her
safety belt. (See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208,
paragraph S7.3.) This light normally remains illuminated when the
driver's safety belt is not being worn. The agency believes that the
combined effect of requiring an audible warning system and dashboard
light inside the vehicle keyed to the driver's seating position,
coupled with the ability of police offers to observe (in normal driving
conditions) from outside the vehicle, whether shoulder belts are being
worn already provides many of the ``reminder'' and enforcement benefits
the petitioner contends would be realized by his proposal.
Not only would the benefits from adopting the petitioner's proposal
appear to be minimal, but also the costs of requiring manufacturers to
install continuously burning lights inside and outside the vehicle
would likely be high. To work in the manner suggested by the
petitioner, each seating position would not only need a belt-use sensor
in every safety buckle, but every seating position other than the
driver's seat would also have to have some form of seat sensor to
indicate whether the seat
[[Page 7749]]
was occupied. Each vehicle would also need to be equipped with a wiring
harness and internal and external lights, designed to illuminate only
when the safety belts in all ``occupied'' seats registered as fastened.
Based on the comparatively simpler weight sensors and wiring harnesses
used in the BMW advanced air bag system, the agency estimates that the
minimum cost for a vehicle with five seating positions would be at
least $50 per vehicle. Substantially greater costs would be incurred in
vehicles with more seating positions and/or vehicles with readily
removable seats.
In addition to the potentially high cost of the petitioner's
proposal, the agency is also concerned about consumer acceptance of
such a system. Vehicle seats, especially rear seats, are frequently
used to transport cargo such as groceries, luggage, pets, and other
heavy objects. If the system were to work as envisioned by the
petitioner, the mere placement of such items on a vehicle's seat
coupled with a failure to fasten the associated belt would prevent the
continuously burning lights from illuminating, thus indicating falsely
to police officers that the vehicle was being operated with unbelted
``occupants.'' Such ``false alarms'' would likely lead to widespread
consumer backlash and disapproval. Other ``false alarms'' could occur
when the light bulbs burn out and need to be replaced by the consumer.
Occupants who do not want to wear their seat belts can also easily
circumvent the system by placing the seat belt behind them or modifying
the light to stay on all the time.
Finally, we note that Congress has requested that NHTSA conduct a
study to consider whether unobtrusive technologies could increase belt
use. In response, NHTSA has contracted with the Transportation Research
Board of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the
benefits and acceptability of these technologies, as well as any
legislative or regulatory actions that may be necessary to enable
installation of devices to encourage seat belt use in passenger
vehicles. In conjunction with this study, NHTSA is also conducting
research to determine what levels of intrusiveness would induce non-
belt users to wear their seat belt, without causing adverse reactions
from current belt users.
For the reasons stated above, NHTSA concludes that it is unlikely
that a rulemaking proceeding to require continuously burning lights
inside and outside the vehicle tied to safety belt usage as suggested
by the petitioner would result in the issuance of a rule requiring such
a device. Accordingly, the petition is denied. Upon completion of the
National Academy of Sciences' and our own studies, we will consider
what future action the agency will take on this issue.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.8.
Issued: February 10, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 03-3832 Filed 2-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P