Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, BMW

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

Christopher J. Bonanti
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
August 29, 2013

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53386-53390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21128]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0095]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document denies a rulemaking petition submitted by BMW
Group, BMW of North America, LLC, to amend the Federal motor vehicle
safety standard on occupant crash protection to permit optional
certification using a seat belt interlock for front seat occupants as
an alternative to the unbelted crash test requirements. The agency is
denying the petition because the supporting material provided by the
petitioner is not sufficient for the agency to fully evaluate the
safety need, benefits, effectiveness, and acceptability of seat belt
interlock systems. Furthermore, in 2012, the agency initiated the
development of a research program on seat belt interlocks in light of
its newly-acquired statutory authority to allow consideration of seat
belt interlocks as a compliance option. The agency believes that making
a determination to amend its performance standards prior to the
completion of its research is premature.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Non-Legal Issues: Ms. Carla Rush,
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
Telephone: (202) 366-4583, Facsimile: (202) 493-2739.
For Legal Issues: Mr. William Shakely, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2992, Facsimile: (202)
366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce
economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. Increasing seat
belt use is one of the agency's highest priorities for carrying out
this mission. For each percentage point gain in national seat belt
usage, we estimate that 200 lives are saved each year. In 2012, the
nationwide seat belt use reached a high of 86 percent for drivers and
front seat passengers. To achieve this rate, we have relied on an array
of agency initiatives, such as regulating and promoting the use of in-
vehicle technologies, the Click It or Ticket program \1\ and State
primary enforcement laws, to encourage seat belt usage. Notwithstanding
impressive gains in seat belt usage, data from the 2011 Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) indicates that 52 percent of all

[[Page 53387]]

passenger vehicle crash fatalities were unbelted occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ http://www.nhtsa.gov/ciot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. History and Research of Seat Belt Interlock Systems

From a historical perspective, the agency's goal of increasing seat
belt usage extends back nearly to the agency's inception. In 1972, as
an interim measure to increase seat belt use until acceptable automatic
systems became available, the agency added a compliance option for
passenger vehicles manufactured between August 15, 1973 and August 14,
1975, that allowed the use of an interlock system that prevented the
engine from starting if any front-seat occupant was not buckled up (37
FR 3911). However, as a result of consumer non-acceptance of these
interlock systems, Congress adopted a new provision, as part of the
Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492,
88 Stat. 1470 (Oct. 27, 1974)). It prohibited NHTSA from requiring, or
permitting as a compliance option \2\ a safety belt interlock designed
to prevent starting or operating a motor vehicle if an occupant is not
using a seat belt or a buzzer designed to indicate a seat belt is not
in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period
after the ignition is turned to the ``start'' or ``on'' position (49
U.S.C. 30124).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ We note that the statutory prohibition restricting the use
of interlocks as an option for compliance with NHTSA standards in no
way limited the manufacturer's freedom to place interlocks in
vehicles. See NHTSA's 2004 interpretation letter to Mr. Bruce H.
Carraway, Jr., Carraway Safety Belt Company at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/a00473beltminder_cmc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1975, NHTSA funded a research study on seat belt interlock
systems in production vehicles.\3\ The study intended to measure the
effectiveness of the interlock system in increasing seat belt usage.
Three separate analyses were conducted. Two involved seat belt use
observations among rental car customers from U.S. airports and
interviews of a subsample of non-users. The third was a field study of
observed seat belt use and a follow-up telephone interview among
private car owners in the general population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ A. Westefeld and B. M. Phillips. Safety Belt Interlock
System: Usage Survey. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, May 1975. DOT HS
801 594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The field study found that occupants of model year (MY) 1973
vehicles showed a 3-6 percent seat belt use rate, while those of MY
1974 vehicles showed a significantly higher seat belt use rate of 41-64
percent.\4\ However, the study also found a decline in the seat belt
use rate among occupants of the MY 1974 vehicles as the year went on
(e.g., in February seat belt usage was 64 percent among drivers and
front right passengers and by November it dropped to 41 percent). This
decline in seat belt use within the observed year was attributed to
mechanical issues with the system as well as drivers learning how to
defeat or circumvent the system. Telephone interviews of the vehicle
owners found that 59 percent considered the seat belt interlocks to be
``unfavorable.'' The proportion of vehicle owners that were categorized
as non-users that considered the interlock systems ``unfavorable'' was
87 percent. Furthermore, only 54 percent of the vehicle owners
interviewed reported that they had not defeated or circumvented the
interlock system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Most MY 1974 vehicles were equipped with seat belt interlock
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2001, NHTSA funded a study (through a contract with the
Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS)) of the potential benefits of technologies designed to increase
seat belt use.\5\ This study aimed to determine how drivers (at that
time) might accept technologies designed to increase seat belt use. As
part of this study, NHTSA conducted in-depth interviews and focus
groups to obtain a greater understanding of the perceived effectiveness
and acceptability of four technologies: two seat belt reminder systems
and two interlock systems (entertainment and transmission).\6\ The NAS
committee reviewed the available literature, held stakeholder meetings
with key automobile manufacturers and suppliers, and reviewed the
results of the in-depth interviews and focus groups conducted by NHTSA
for this study.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ ``Buckling Up, Technologies to Increase Seat Belt Use,''
Special Report 278, Committee for the Safety Belt Technology Study,
http://www.TRB.org, 2003.
\6\ An entertainment interlock prevents playing the radio or
stereo unless seat belts are buckled. A transmission interlock
prevents putting the vehicle in gear unless seat belts are buckled.
\7\ Bentley, J.J., Kurrus, R., & Beuse, N. ``Qualitative
research regarding attitudes towards four technologies aimed at
increasing safety belt use.'' (Report 2003-01) Bethesda, MD: Equals
Three Communications. DOT HS 043 581.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Among the NAS study findings, transmission interlock systems were
perceived to be highly effective based upon the interviews and focus
groups conducted. More than 85 percent of respondents rated them
effective. However, only 43 percent rated them acceptable with the
hard-core non-users \8\ making up the highest percentage (71 percent)
of respondents who rated the transmission interlock not acceptable. The
recommendations from the study suggested that NHTSA and the private
sector encourage the research and development of seat belt interlock
systems for certain high-risk groups (e.g., drivers impaired by
alcohol, teenage drivers) who are overrepresented in crashes. It also
suggested that interlocks could be installed on company fleets. Other
recommendations issued by the NAS report involved seat belt reminders
and other strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Hard-core non-users are those who report never or rarely
using seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2009, NHTSA published a report on a field study that evaluated a
device that prevented drivers from shifting vehicles into gear for up
to 8 seconds unless the seat belt was buckled.\9\ This study showed
that a gearshift delay resulted in a significant 20 percentage-point
increase among two samples of commercial fleet drivers. This study also
noted that future research could investigate a complete transmission
seat belt interlock now that seat belt use is much higher than in the
1970s and that transmission interlocks may receive higher acceptance
than ignition interlocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Pilot Tests of a Seat Belt Gearshift Delay on the Belt Use
of Commercial Fleet (DOT HS 811 230)--Dec. 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the history of interlocks, and the statutory prohibition
against requiring or allowing seat belt interlocks as a compliance
option, manufacturers have primarily focused their efforts on
developing and introducing technologies that encourage seat belt use,
but that are acceptable to customers, such as seat belt reminder
systems. Such systems can be effective without being overly annoying.
In 2012, President Obama signed into law Public Law 112-141, the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). MAP-21, a
transportation reauthorization bill, removed the restriction from
permitting the use of seat belt interlocks as a compliance option.
However, the prohibition on requiring a seat belt interlock still
remains.
In 2013, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
published its findings from a national telephone survey it conducted on
the attitudes toward seat belt use and in-vehicle technologies for
encouraging seat belt use. The respondents were asked about their
support of different types of seat belt interlocks: a speed interlock,
a transmission interlock, an entertainment system interlock, and an
ignition interlock. The survey found that only about half of the full-
time seat belt users

[[Page 53388]]

supported the use of seat belt interlocks to encourage seat belt use
and even fewer part-time seat belt users and non-users supported their
use.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ D.G. Kidd, et al. ``Attitudes toward seat belt use and in-
vehicle technologies for encouraging belt use.'' Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety, January 2013. http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1183.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Unbelted Test Requirements

Initially, the injury criteria limits in Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 had to be met for air bag equipped
vehicles in frontal rigid barrier crash tests at speeds up to 48 km/h
(30 mph), with the 50th percentile adult male dummies wearing seat
belts, and in separate barrier crashes at those speeds with dummies
being protected by automatic (passive) means (35 FR 16927). However,
due in part to litigation, the passive protection requirements did not
begin until the MY 1987 for passenger cars and MY 1995 for light trucks
and vans. The barrier test was performed with the dummies unbelted if
the means of passive protection was an air bag.\11\ In 1997, the agency
amended FMVSS No. 208 to provide a temporary option for manufacturers
to certify their vehicles to an unbelted sled test as an alternative to
the unbelted barrier test requirement (62 FR 12960). NHTSA established
the sled test option to address the air bag fatalities that were
occurring at the time, and to ensure that the vehicle manufacturers
could quickly depower all air bags so that they inflate less
aggressively. As part of the May 2000 final rule that required advanced
air bags, the sled test option was removed and vehicle manufacturers
were required to meet a rigid barrier crash test with both unbelted 5th
percentile adult female dummies and 50th percentile adult male dummies
in a 20 mph to 25 mph rigid barrier crash test (65 FR 30680).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ On September 2, 1993, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 208 to
require the installation of air bags as the means of providing
automatic crash protection (58 FR 46551). The full compliance date
for the amended requirements was September 1, 1997, for passenger
cars and September 1, 1998, for light trucks and vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petition

On October 23, 2012, BMW Group, BMW of North America, LLC, (herein
referred to as the petitioner) submitted a petition to NHTSA to amend
FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' to permit a certification
option using a seat belt interlock for front seat occupants as an
alternative to the existing unbelted crash test.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ The petitioner noted that it had initiated the action with
the Congress to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to give the
agency the authority to allow a seat belt interlock as a compliance
option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The petitioner cited several arguments in support of their request,
including the potential benefits associated with the increased use of
seat belts as well as the opportunity to design optimized systems for
belted occupants. The petitioner estimated that hundreds of lives could
be saved if FMVSS No. 208 was modified as requested and it suggested
that the number of lives that could be saved by increasing seat belt
use would be significant compared to other agency rulemakings (e.g.,
roof crush, ejection mitigation, tire pressure monitoring systems,
etc.). With regard to optimizing for belted occupants, the petitioner
noted that it was gathering additional simulation/user acceptability
data to share with the agency, as confidential business information.
However, the agency has not received that data to date.
By allowing vehicles to be optimized for belted occupants, the
petitioner claimed that vehicles will be lighter and more spacious, as
well as more fuel efficient with lower emissions. The petitioner
estimated that a 7 pound vehicle weight reduction (by removing knee
bolsters) would result in carbon dioxide (CO2) savings
between 274-406 metric tons per year and 30,850-45,744 gallons of fuel
saved per year.
The petitioner stated that by making interlocks a compliance
option, there would not be any cost burden associated with this
amendment and it would result in savings of Federal and State funds
(e.g., expenses for emergency medical services (EMS), hospital stays,
insurance, traffic, etc.). It also claimed that Federal funding for
seat belt initiatives could be used to fund other programs since seat
belt interlocks have the potential of increasing belt usage at no extra
cost to the government.
The petitioner identified three potential types of interlock
systems: An ignition interlock, a transmission interlock, and a speed-
limiting interlock. The petitioner noted that an ignition interlock
would likely have low customer acceptance, based on past reactions, and
have other disadvantages (e.g., does not allow remote starting,
encourages defeat mechanisms, etc.). The petitioner stated that a
transmission interlock has the benefits of an ignition interlock, but
allows the driver to warm up the vehicle or simply sit in the vehicle
with the heat or air conditioning running. The petitioner believed that
a speed-limiting interlock, that allows the vehicle to drive at low
speeds (ideal for short distance tasks, such as driving to a mail box,
towing situations, etc.), would be the least annoying and most accepted
type of interlock.
The petitioner further expressed its preference for a speed-
limiting interlock system that focuses on front occupants only. It
stated that monitoring rear seat belt usage would be problematic
because occupant detection in the rear would prevent consumers from
carrying cargo on the rear seats, which would likely result in consumer
backlash.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Occupant detection systems that rely on weight sensors
would have problems distinguishing occupants from cargo, which could
be a source of annoyance for drivers if cargo is triggering the
interlock system and not an unbuckled occupant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analysis of Petition

The agency is denying the petitioner's request to allow a seat belt
interlock compliance option as an alternative to unbelted crash test
requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Removing the protection offered to
unbelted occupants would be unprecedented for NHTSA considering
unbelted crash test requirements date back to the 1970s (35 FR
16927).\14\ To do so without a sufficient scientific basis could lead
to unintended consequences and potentially negative outcomes. Given the
complex issues surrounding seat belt interlocks, the agency believes
that it would be desirable to have additional information beyond that
provided by the petitioner before deciding whether to pursue the
requested rulemaking action. The agency would like to evaluate the
safety case for rulemaking on this issue objectively and with a
reasonable degree of certainty. However, the agency does not have
sufficient information, at this time, to perform such an evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Due to many years of litigation, the passive protection
requirements did not begin until MY 1987 for passenger cars and MY
1995 for light trucks and vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although there may be potential benefits of a seat belt interlock
system as a means of increasing seat belt use, as suggested by the
petitioner, the agency does not believe this is sufficient
justification, without additional information, for the requested
rulemaking. There are many other important considerations that we would
like addressed before deciding whether to pursue rulemaking. Among such
considerations would be user acceptability and potential disbenefits.
The following discussion provides further analysis of the justification
provided by the petitioner as well as other key factors that the agency
would want to consider before deciding whether to pursue rulemaking.

[[Page 53389]]

The petitioner's main arguments for permitting the use of seat belt
interlock systems as a compliance option are that it would increase
seat belt use rates among front seat occupants and allow manufacturers
to optimize their vehicle interior and safety restraint designs for
belted occupants. It also mentioned the added benefit of allowing
manufacturers the design freedom to create innovative lightweight
vehicle concepts.
The agency agrees with the theoretical premise that a seat belt
interlock system could have the potential to increase seat belt use
rates. This is consistent with our past research. However, the degree
to which seat belt use will increase is not clear and is likely
dependent on multiple factors. Since interlocks have not been present
in the vehicle fleet since the 1970s, it is difficult to make an
accurate assessment of their effectiveness and acceptance at this time.
We cannot assume the effects will be the same as they were in the past.
Given today's 86 percent seat belt use rate, if interlocks were re-
introduced into the vehicle fleet, we would not experience an eight-
fold increase in seat belt use that the 1975 study on the interlock
systems reported.
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to address the acceptance of
interlock systems, given their historical background. The IIHS's recent
survey suggested that the acceptance among part-time and non-users of
these systems has not improved over the years. This lack of acceptance
among the types of occupants that an interlock is intended to target
leads to the reasonable assumption that such occupants may attempt to
disable the interlocks. This is supported by the research findings and
the real world historical evidence of consumer backlash in the 1970s,
which resulted in motorists finding ways to disconnect or circumvent
their interlock system. The petitioner does not address how such a
system would be hardened to prevent it from being disabled or
circumvented, nor the expected actual effectiveness of the systems
based on the level of hardening.
Before deciding whether to pursue rulemaking, NHTSA would want such
information in order to evaluate the technologies available to limit
the possibility that seat belt interlock systems could be circumvented
or disabled and to evaluate potential test procedures to determine that
a vehicle certified by this option could not be circumvented or
disabled and the costs and expected effectiveness of added technologies
to ensure that. The petitioner did not provide specifics of how any of
the three types of systems it described would be hardened to prevent
circumvention or any means by which the agency could ensure the system
could not be defeated.
Another concern with an interlock system that is not universally
effective (i.e., results in some remainder of occupants unbelted) is
the potential risk of harm to those unbelted occupants. By allowing
manufacturers to opt out of complying with the unbelted frontal crash
test requirements, it potentially puts unbelted occupants at an
increased risk of harm. Before deciding whether to pursue rulemaking,
the agency would want to determine and quantify the potential
disbenefit to those remaining unbelted occupants in comparison to the
protection they are now offered. The petition lacked an analysis of
this issue.
The petitioner instead opined that the current unbelted test
requirements may result in a reduction of protection to belted front
seat occupants. It claimed that belted occupant protection can be
optimized if the unbelted tests were removed; however, no data were
submitted to substantiate this claim. The agency is further unaware of
any increased risk of injury to belted front occupants as a result of
vehicle optimization being done to meet both the unbelted and belted
crash protection requirements. Without detailed information on the
design changes the petitioner envisions that vehicle manufacturers will
make in order to offer better protection to belted front occupants in
the absence of an unbelted test requirement and the associated
quantified benefits, the agency is unable to assess the validity of the
petitioner's claim.
The petitioner also suggested that by permitting the use of a seat
belt interlock system as a compliance option, manufacturers could
optimize their vehicles to be ``lighter, more spacious and fuel
efficient.'' The petitioner stated that manufacturers are known to
modify the vehicle interior designs and oversize the restraint systems
in order to meet the unbelted frontal occupant crash protection
criteria. It estimated that by granting its petition, a 7 pound vehicle
weight reduction (by removing knee bolsters) would result in
CO2 and fuel savings.
We presume that by suggesting the removal of a restraint system
component, such as the knee bolster, the implication is that if there
were no unbelted test, the knee bolster could be removed. However, it
is unclear to the agency how removal of the knee bolster helps optimize
the protection offered to belted occupants, as the petitioner
suggested. It is also important to understand the extent of the safety
reduction, if removal of components like knee bolsters degrades the
protection of those occupants that might remain unbelted.
The agency acknowledges that equipment added to vehicles to comply
with safety standards may increase vehicle weight, and therefore have a
secondary, but generally very small, effect on vehicle fuel economy,
and, in some cases, decreased passenger compartment space. However,
when considering a petition to exempt a manufacturer from complying
with an occupant safety standard, the agency's first consideration
would be the effects of the proposed exemption on occupant safety.
Furthermore, the petitioner's requested amendments will not necessarily
lead to fuel economy gains that could be attributed to this rulemaking
action since there is no accompanying requirement on the part of the
vehicle manufacturer to achieve these fuel economy benefits.
The petitioner stated that by making interlocks a compliance option
there would be no resulting cost burden. It also claimed there would be
savings to society associated with reduction in expenses for such
things as EMS, hospitals, insurance, and traffic. It also claimed that
Federal funding for seat belt initiatives could be used elsewhere. The
agency has not traditionally estimated the cost burden to industry for
compliance options because the agency's focus is on whether the various
options will result in similar benefits. To the extent cost burden
would be considered, it is only one of many factors the agency must
consider in allowing an option. As we expressed above, the petition is
lacking other important information that the agency would want in order
to determine the merits of the petitioner's request.
As to the petitioner's claims of societal cost savings, we note
that the costs related to emergency medical services, hospital stays
and insurance would all be captured in our assessment of injury
reduction related to any increase in seat belt use. As to any cost
saving related to traffic reduction, we do not expect that an interlock
would prevent a crash from occurring, thus the assumption of a cost
saving related to this factor is speculative. Finally, as to the
claimed potential savings related to funding of seat belt use
initiatives, we note the following observations. First, even if a seat
belt interlock compliance option were allowed, it would only affect new
vehicles and there would be many legacy vehicles in the fleet without
interlocks. Second, since it would be a compliance option, the extent
to which this option will be

[[Page 53390]]

selected is unknown, again potentially leaving vehicles in the fleet
without interlocks. Thus, we predict that seat belt use initiatives
would need to remain in place for the foreseeable future.
Finally, we wish to make clear that the denial of this petition
does not restrict the petitioner, or any other manufacturer, from
voluntarily providing a seat belt interlock system in their
vehicles.\15\ In fact, such a voluntary implementation would likely
yield important real world data about interlock systems that could be
utilized by the agency in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ However, such a system cannot be considered when assessing
compliance with the FMVSS and thus all protection currently required
by FMVSS No. 208 to belted and unbelted occupants would remain in
force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. NHTSA Planned Seat Belt Interlock Systems Research

The agency is in the process of developing a research program on
seat belt interlock systems in an effort to understand the potential
for improving occupant safety in light of the agency's newly acquired
statutory authority to permit interlocks as a compliance option. The
human factors research program will gather data to help determine the
effectiveness and acceptance of seat belt interlock systems as well as
discuss potential minimum performance specifications for seat belt
interlock systems and their advantages/disadvantages (including those
needed to prevent defeating the system).\16\ The agency anticipates
participation by organizations leading the development of seat belt
interlock system prototypes (i.e., vehicle manufacturers and suppliers)
in these research efforts. To assess the potential impacts on unbelted
occupants, the agency initially plans on using occupant restraint
simulation models to understand the safety implications for optimizing
occupant compartments and restraint systems considering today's
regulatory requirements versus those that apply to belted occupants
only. We plan to complete these research studies in 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ This research is contingent upon the availability of seat
belt interlock system prototypes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

After carefully considering all aspects of the petition, the agency
has decided to deny the petitioner's request to allow a seat belt
interlock compliance option as an alternative to the unbelted crash
test requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Given the complex issues
surrounding seat belt interlocks, the agency believes that it would be
desirable to have additional information, beyond the supporting
material provided by the petitioner, before deciding whether to pursue
the requested rulemaking action. The agency lacks field data or
sufficient research findings that would allow for the determination of
the optimal type of seat belt interlock system as it relates to
acceptance and the attributes necessary to harden against
circumvention. Nor do we have information to assess the potential level
of safety for belted and unbelted occupants that would result from such
a rulemaking.
The agency's effort to study seat belt interlock systems is in its
initial stages. Making a determination to include seat belt interlocks
as an alternative compliance option to the unbelted test requirements
of FMVSS No. 208 prior to completion of our research is premature.
In accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, this completes the agency's
review of the petition.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

Issued in Washington, DC, on: August 19, 2013 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-21128 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P