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

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.

                           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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

[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.
* * * * *

Table 1 to Sec.  571.101 Controls, Telltales, and Indicators With
Illumination or Color Requirements \1\
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.008

[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.

    \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 S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>.1, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>.1,
S4.2.8, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S4.2.9, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>.1, S<IP_ADDRESS>,
S<IP_ADDRESS>.1, and S4.5.1.(f)(3);
0
b. Revising paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(b); and
0
c. Adding paragraph S7.5.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  571.208  Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.

* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS>. 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].
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 Any front outboard designated seating position and any
inboard designated seating position for which a seat belt warning is
specified in S<IP_ADDRESS> shall comply with S7.5.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>. 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].
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.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

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.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>. 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.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>. All rear designated seating positions certified to a
compliance option requiring a seat belt, except law enforcement
vehicles, shall comply with S7.5.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> 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.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 All front outboard designated seating positions shall
comply with S7.5.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> 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.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.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.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> 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 S<IP_ADDRESS>, S4.2.8,
S<IP_ADDRESS>, and S<IP_ADDRESS>, 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 S<IP_ADDRESS>, S4.2.9, S<IP_ADDRESS>, and
S<IP_ADDRESS>.
    (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.

    (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