[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53648-53652]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21946]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0149]
RIN 2127-AK25

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard (FMVSS) on occupant crash protection to remove the sunset of a
requirement that a vehicle's lap belt must be lockable, without the use
of special tools, to tightly secure a child restraint system (CRS). We
refer to this as the ``lockability'' requirement. Under the current
standard, the lockability requirement ceases to apply to seating
positions that are equipped with a child restraint anchorage system
(commonly referred to as a ``LATCH'' system) on vehicles manufactured
on or after September 1, 2012. Because data indicate that motorists are
still using lockable belts to install CRSs even in seating positions
with LATCH, there is a continuing need for the lockability requirement
even in seating positions with LATCH. Thus, this final rule ensures
that the lockability requirement continues in effect for all seating
positions past September 1, 2012.

DATES: Effective date: The final rule is effective December 27, 2011.
Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must be received not
later than October 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Ms.
Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Light Duty Vehicle
Division (Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues,
you may call Mr. Thomas Healy, Office of the Chief Counsel (Phone: 202-
366-2992; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send mail to these officials at:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule amends FMVSS No. 208 to
retain the lockability requirement, which is slated to sunset September
1, 2012. The agency is issuing this final rule because data indicate
that motorists are still using vehicle belts to a large degree to
attach CRSs to the vehicle seats. The NPRM preceding this final rule
was published September 12, 2008 (73 FR 52939, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-
0149).

I. Background

    On October 13, 1993, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, to require all passenger cars, trucks, buses, and

multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of
4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)) or less to have a seat belt
assembly with a lockable lap belt at each forward-facing designated
seating position (DSP), except the driver's position and any right-
front DSP equipped with an automatic belt.\1\ The means provided to
lock the lap belt could not require the use of a locking clip \2\ or
any other device that attached to the vehicle's seat belt webbing, nor
could it require the user to twist, invert, or otherwise deform the
webbing. This requirement is referred to by the agency as the
``lockability'' requirement or the ``lockable belt'' requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 58 FR 52922, (Oct. 13, 1993).
    \2\ A locking clip is a flat H-shaped metal clip intended to
fasten together belt webbing (lap and shoulder portion) at a sliding
latch plate, to prevent the webbing from sliding through.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMVSS No. 208 also requires vehicles to be equipped with an
emergency locking retractor (ELR) for Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt
assemblies.\3\ To meet the lockability and ELR requirements, vehicle
manufacturers commonly use a switchable seat belt retractor (ELR/
automatic locking retractor (ALR)) that can be converted from an ELR to
an ALR. An ELR/ALR retractor can be converted from an ELR to an ALR by
slowly pulling all of the webbing out of the retractor and then letting
the retractor wind the webbing back up. In the ALR mode, the seat belt
is lockable for use with CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An ELR is a seat belt retractor that locks only in response
to the rapid deceleration of the vehicle or rapid spooling out of
the seat belt webbing from the retractor, and increases the comfort
of the seat belt assembly as compared to an automatic locking
retractor (ALR). An ALR is a seat belt retractor that locks when the
continuous motion of spooling the belt out is stopped. From that
point, the seat belt cannot be pulled out further without first
letting the belt fully retract into the retractor housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The lockability requirement was meant to ease the installation of
CRSs. However, motorists still found the installation of CRSs using a
lockable seat belt to be difficult and the compatibility of a CRS with
vehicle seats frequently challenging. Because of these difficulties,
NHTSA published a final rule on March 5, 1999, establishing FMVSS No.
225, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems.\4\ That final rule required
motor vehicle manufacturers to install Lower Anchors and Tethers for
Children (LATCH) \5\ systems in their vehicles, and also amended FMVSS
No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, to require CRS manufacturers to
install components on most CRSs to allow the CRS to connect to a LATCH
system on a vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 64 FR 10786, (Mar. 5, 1999).
    \5\ The term LATCH was developed by child restraint
manufacturers and retailers to refer to the standardized child
restraint anchorage system required to be installed in vehicles by
FMVSS No. 225. The LATCH system is comprised of two lower anchorages
and one top tether anchorage. Each lower anchorage includes a rigid
round rod or bar onto which the connector of a child restraint
system can be attached. The bars are located at the intersection of
the vehicle seat cushion and seat back. The top tether anchorage is
a fixture to which the tether of a child restraint system can be
hooked. FMVSS No. 225 required the 3-point LATCH system at two rear
seating positions, and a top tether anchorage at a third rear
seating position when a third rear seating position is provided in
the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When NHTSA published the final rule, the agency anticipated that
all vehicles would be LATCH-equipped by September 1, 2012, ten years
after the implementation date of the final rule. Because LATCH was
intended to replace lockable belts as the means for installing CRSs in
vehicles, the agency believed that there would be a time when lockable
belts were no longer needed for LATCH-equipped seating positions.
Accordingly, the final rule also amended FMVSS No. 208, to rescind the
lockability requirement for each rear designated seating position
equipped with LATCH. The sunset of the lockability requirement was set
as September 1, 2012.
    In 2005, NHTSA conducted a survey to assess consumer response to
LATCH.\6\ The survey sought to determine whether drivers of vehicles
equipped with a LATCH system were using LATCH to secure LATCH-equipped
CRSs to their vehicles, and to see if those CRSs were properly
installed. The survey found that in 13 percent of the LATCH-equipped
vehicles in which there was a child restraint, the restraint was placed
in a seat position not equipped with lower anchors (the vehicle seat
belt was used to secure the restraint to the vehicle). Among the 87
percent who placed the child restraint at a position equipped with
lower anchors, only 60 percent used the lower attachments to secure the
restraint to the vehicle. Of the child restraints located in a seating
position equipped with an upper tether anchor, 55 percent were attached
to the vehicle using the upper tether. Sixty-one (61) percent of upper
tether nonusers and 55 percent of lower attachment nonusers cited their
lack of knowledge--not knowing what the anchorages were, that they were
available in the vehicle, the importance of using them, or how to use
them properly--as the reason for not using them. While the LATCH survey
found that consumers who have experience with LATCH like the system and
that LATCH is helping to reduce the insecure installation of child
restraints, the report also indicated that proper use of LATCH is not
inherently evident to parents. Many parents do not use LATCH; they may
not know about it or understand its importance, or may have
difficulties using it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Decina, L.E., Lococo, K.H., and Doyle, C.T., Child Restraint
Use Survey: LATCH Use and Misuse. NHTSA Publication No. DOT HS 810
679, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington,
2006. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Communication%20&%20Consumer%20Information/Articles/Associated%20Files/LATCH_Report_12-2006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the survey's findings, NHTSA held a public meeting
February 8, 2007, to discuss the effectiveness of the LATCH system,
posing questions to vehicle manufacturers, CRS manufacturers, and
public interest groups about improvements to the LATCH system and
educating the public about LATCH.\7\ Among the issues raised at the
meeting was whether the lockability requirement should be retained,
given the results of the survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Notice of public meeting, request for comments, 72 FR 3103,
(Jan. 24, 2007). A transcript of the public meeting is available at
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2007-2683.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 22, 2007, SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. (SafetyBeltSafe) and
Safe Ride News petitioned the agency to remove the sunset clause for
the lockability requirement in FMVSS No. 208. The petitioners believed
that the agency should retain the lockable belt requirement for LATCH-
equipped DSPs because many parents and caregivers still rely on
lockable belts to keep their children safely secured while riding in a
vehicle. In response to the petition and the comments received at the
public meeting, NHTSA published an NPRM on September 12, 2008,
proposing to remove the sunset on the belt lockability requirement for
LATCH-equipped DSPs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 73 FR 52939, (Sept. 12, 2008), supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments on NPRM

    NHTSA received 154 comments in response to the NPRM. All of the
comments received by the agency expressed support for the agency's
proposal in the NPRM to retain the lockability requirement. The agency
received comments from motor vehicle manufacturers, insurance groups,
CRS manufacturers, child advocacy groups, highway and traffic consumer
organizations, child passenger safety (CPS) technicians, physicians,
health and medical organizations, emergency responders and private
individuals.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Groups that submitted comments included General Motors
Corporation (GM), the Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), the American Automobile Association
(AAA), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, Inc. (JPMA), Dorel
Juvenile Group (DJG), several Safe Kids Worldwide coalitions,
SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A., Safe Ride News Publications, the Car Seat
Lady, the New York Governor's Traffic Safety Committee, Illinois
Traffic Safety Leaders, the Vermont Governor's Highway Safety
Program, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), the Utah
Highway Safety Office, Traffic Safety Projects (TSP), University of
North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC), Crash
Survivors Network, the American Association for Justice (AAJ), and
the Texas Agri-Life Extension-Texas A&M System.

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

    In expressing support for the agency's proposal, the commenters
raised many similar arguments for retaining the lockability requirement
in FMVSS No. 208. Many of the commenters submitted comments derived
from the same template. Commenters believed that the agency should
retain the lockability requirement because some motorists prefer to use
belts to attach CRSs, or must use belts instead of LATCH for a variety
of reasons, including those raised by petitioners SafetyBeltSafe and
Safe Ride News in support of retaining the lockability requirement. See
NPRM, 73 FR at 52940.

III. Agency Decision

    After reviewing the comments, NHTSA has concluded that a safety
need exists to retain the lockability requirement in FMVSS No. 208, to
facilitate the ease-of-use of seat belts in attaching CRSs to vehicles.
The agency is adopting this final rule for the reasons stated in the
NPRM. Specifically, the agency's LATCH survey (Decina, L.E., Lococo,
K.H., and Doyle, C.T., Child Restraint Use Survey: LATCH Use and
Misuse, supra) indicates that many motorists are continuing to use the
vehicle's belt system to install child restraints, even when attaching
a LATCH-equipped child restraint to a LATCH-equipped vehicle seat.
    NHTSA's observational survey of the use, misuse, and consumer
reaction to LATCH found that drivers who preferred installing a CRS
with seat belt as opposed to LATCH indicated that they knew what to do
with the seat belt. These drivers who preferred to install CRSs with
seat belts also suggested it was easier and quicker to use the seat
belt, and without the seat belt they could not get the CRS installed
tight enough. While a majority of those surveyed in the NHTSA
observational study preferred to install CRSs using LATCH, some parents
and caregivers continued to demonstrate a preference for lockable
belts. We are also concerned that, having become accustomed to the
availability and use of lockable belts, some may continue to use seat
belts to install CRSs even if they could not lock the belt and even
when LATCH is available at the seating position. We believe that the
continued availability of lockable belts provides parents and
caregivers the flexibility needed to ensure that everyone can readily
and safely install a CRS in their vehicle, whether they choose to use
LATCH or the belts.
    Many commenters elaborated on reasons some motorists choose to use
the seat belts instead of LATCH to attach CRSs.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Some elaborated on reasons for supporting lockability that
were unrelated to the use of the belts to attach CRSs. Some
commenters stated that lockable lap belts are used to prevent
children in a booster seat or children with behavioral problems or
special needs, who cannot sit still, from manipulating the seat
belt. Some noted that locking the belts adjacent to a restrained
child passenger prevents children from playing with the belt and
wrapping it around their neck. With regard to the latter point, we
note that NHTSA recommends that if a child has an unused seat belt
within reach, the caregiver should buckle unused seat belt and lock
the seat belt using the lockability feature. http://www.nhtsa.gov/
Driving+Safety/Child+Safety/Keeping+Kids+Safe+-
+Seat+Belt+Entanglement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters noted that LATCH anchors in some vehicles can be
difficult to access, which can complicate installation of CRSs. We
recognize there continue to be challenges in fitting some CRSs in a
particular vehicle, notwithstanding improvements LATCH has made to
vehicle-CRS compatibility. Accordingly, NHTSA has developed a new
Vehicle-CRS fit program through the New Car Assessment Program that
will provide caregivers with information about which CRSs fit their
vehicles best. We anticipate this program will further minimize
incompatibility issues and improve consumers' familiarity and comfort
with installing CRSs using LATCH over time.\11\ We are also undertaking
a program to assess whether some improvements to LATCH are needed.\12\
At the same time, we believe that retaining the lockable belt
requirement in FMVSS No. 208 is also needed to facilitate an easy
installation of a CRS in a vehicle when the belts are used, and a
secure fit of the CRS to the vehicle seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 76 FR 10637, (Feb. 25, 2011).
    \12\ See NHTSA 2011-2013 Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan,
p. 16, http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/2011-2013_Vehicle_Safety-Fuel_Economy_Rulemaking-Research_Priority_Plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters indicated that some consumers use the belts because
they do not have a choice in using LATCH. Some commenters noted that
since the time that LATCH was adopted, CRSs have evolved so that more
and more of them are designed to accommodate heavier children. Several
CRS manufacturers now offer harnessed-CRSs for children with weights
above 40 lb. The harnessed-CRSs must be attached to the vehicle seat by
some means. Yet, many vehicle manufacturers have specified a maximum
load of 40 lb to 48 lb for the LATCH anchors in their vehicles.
Commenters requested that the agency retain the belt lockability
requirement, despite the existence of LATCH, to accommodate children
weighing more than the manufacturer-recommended weight limit for LATCH
anchors of vehicles in which they ride. When the child's weight
bypasses the weight limit, the caregiver will have to detach the CRS
from the LATCH anchors and re-attach the CRS using the seat belt. In
that event, it would facilitate the installation if the belt were
lockable. Similarly, some commenters pointed out that retaining the
lockability requirement provides flexibility to caregivers in deciding
where car beds and harnesses could be installed. These CRSs are not
required by FMVSS No. 213 to have LATCH attachments.
    The agency acknowledges that caregivers need to use seat belts to
install the above CRSs. Retaining the lockability requirement will
provide caregivers the greatest flexibility to choose a DSP where they
could achieve an easy and secure installation.

Conclusion

    The agency has decided to retain the belt lockability requirement
for LATCH-equipped DSPs and is rescinding the belt lockability sunset
in this final rule. We believe that retaining the lockable belt
requirement in FMVSS No. 208 will help caregivers to properly and
securely install CRSs in vehicles.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the DOT's regulatory
policies and procedures. This final rule was not reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning
and Review.'' It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866
or the Department's regulatory policies and procedures. The agency is
seeking to ensure that lap belts continue to be lockable in vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2012. The rulemaking would not
affect current costs of manufacturing lap belt systems. The minimal
impacts of today's amendment do not warrant preparation of a regulatory
evaluation.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 60l et
seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities.
I hereby certify that this rule would not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The final rule would affect
motor vehicle manufacturers, multistage manufacturers and alterers, but
the entities that qualify as small businesses would not be
significantly affected by this rulemaking because they are already
required to comply with the lockability requirements and have been
since 1995. This final rule removes the sunset of the requirement to
ensure that lap belts continue to be lockable in vehicles manufactured
on or after September 1, 2012. The rulemaking would not affect current
costs of manufacturing lap belt systems.

C. Executive Order 13132

    NHTSA has examined today's rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 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 rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would 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 preempt 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 addressing the
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision set forth above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance 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 such 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 there being 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 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this 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 today's rule
and finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a
minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule
preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard
on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's rule.
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not
conflict with the minimum standard announced here. Without any
conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common
law tort cause of action.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ We note that AAJ submitted a comment to the September 12,
2008 NPRM questioning the agency's inclusion of a discussion of the
preemptive effect of the rule in the preamble of the NPRM. A June
14, 2010 final rule on FMVSS No. 305, Electric-powered vehicles:
electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection, has previously
responded to AAJ's concerns about the agency's discussion of the
preemptive effect of safety standards. See, 75 FR 33515, at 33524-
33525 (Jun. 12, 2010). That discussion and this discussion here
should fully respond to AAJ's concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. This final rule would not establish any new
information collection requirements.

F. 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.'' There are no voluntary consensus standards
pertaining to the lockability requirements addressed today.

G. 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 preemptive
effect of this final rule is discussed above. 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.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 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 expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This final rule would
not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million
annually.

I. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. This rulemaking is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as
defined in E.O. 12866.

J. Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is
not subject to E.O. 13211.

K. 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.

L. Privacy Act

    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).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
set forth below.

PART 571--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 1.50.

0
2. Section 571.208 is amended by; revising the introductory paragraph
of S<IP_ADDRESS> and removing S<IP_ADDRESS>(d).
    The revision reads as follows:

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

* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Passenger cars, and trucks, buses, and multipurpose
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less
manufactured on or after September 1, 1995 shall meet the requirements
of S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), S<IP_ADDRESS>(b) and S<IP_ADDRESS>(c).
* * * * *

    Issued on: August 22, 2011.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-21946 Filed 8-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55689-55690]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22863]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0002]

Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on November 2, 2011, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC/Silver Spring, The Ballrooms, 8727
Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD. The hotel telephone number is 301-
589-5200.
    Contact Person: Paul Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, rm.
2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-
800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), and follow the
prompts to the desired center or product area. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice
in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On November 2, 2011, the committee will discuss
supplemental new drug applications 21-687 and 21-445, VYTORIN
(ezetimibe/simvastatin) and ZETIA (ezetimibe) tablets, respectively,
MSP (Merck/Schering-Plough) Singapore Company, LLC. Simvastatin lowers
lipids (fats that circulate in the bloodstream, including cholesterol)
by inhibiting 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA reductase, which is an
enzyme involved in producing lipids in the body, and ezetimibe lowers
lipids by inhibiting the absorption of cholesterol from the intestine.
The proposed indication (use) of ZETIA in combination with simvastatin
or VYTORIN is to reduce major cardiovascular events in patients with
chronic kidney disease based on the results of the Study of Heart and
Renal Protection (SHARP). SHARP was a clinical trial that studied the
effect of VYTORIN compared with placebo on the occurrence of major
cardiovascular events in patients with chronic kidney disease who did
not have a history of myocardial infarction or coronary
revascularization (heart bypass surgery or opening heart vessels with a
balloon or stents). The primary outcome of major cardiovascular events
was defined as the first occurrence of either nonfatal myocardial
infarction, cardiac death, stroke, or coronary or noncoronary
revascularization (including nontraumatic amputation). The primary
analysis demonstrated that assignment to VYTORIN significantly reduced
the relative risk of a major cardiovascular event by 16% compared to
placebo.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
October 19, 2011. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before October 11, 2011. Time allotted
for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the

speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact
person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak
by October 12, 2011.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Paul Tran at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: September 1, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-22863 Filed 9-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24849-24851]
[FR Doc No: E9-12132]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OEI-2009-0328, FRL-8909-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Regulations.gov Information Collection; OMB Control
No. 2025-0008, EPA ICR No. 2357.02

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to replace an emergency Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This emergency ICR
was approved by OMB on May 18, 2009. Before submitting this ICR to OMB
for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-
2009-0328, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, mail code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, or by hand delivery: EPA
Docket Center, EPA West Bldg, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shanita Brackett, OEI/OIC/CStD at the
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., (MC 2822-
T), Washington, DC 20460; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number(202) 566-1611: e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate 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;
    (ii) Evaluate 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;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through 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 particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments.
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the ICR
title on the first page of your response. You may also provide the
Federal Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does this Apply To?

    Title: Regulations.gov Information Collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2025-0008.
    Abstract: In response to the Presidential memorandum, the
eRulemaking Program will launch the Regulations.gov `feedback exchange'
Web site in May 2009. This interactive Web site will showcase new
technologies being considered for Regulations.gov. The `feedback
exchange' will serve as a learning laboratory for open government,
enabling the public to provide input on the Regulations.gov interface,
build a community of practice on the Federal regulatory development
process, and ensure that the eRulemaking Program can efficiently manage
federal resources by testing new tools before they are launched.
    The Regulations.gov `feedback exchange' Web site will provide the
public with a preview of new technologies considered for
Regulations.gov. It will also enable the public to provide feedback on
these technologies. Technologies considered for the Regulations.gov
`feedback exchange' include: User Profiles; Comment Threads and Wikis;
Ratings, Polls, and Tagging; an interactive Educational Tool; and an
Information Export capability. These technologies will be deployed
iteratively, with components deployed upon the site's release in May
2009 and during subsequent upgrades to the Web site. User profiles
enable the public to register on the site and pre-load submitter
information for later use as well as save their own personalized
searches, RSS feeds, and e-mail alerts without the use of persistent
cookies. Comment Threads allow the public to enter into virtual
conversations with one another about a topic. Wikis enable the public
to collaboratively develop and modify narrative descriptions about a
topic. Ratings and Polls allow the public to indicate a preference for
a topic or issue via the selection of stars or thumbs up/thumbs down
icons which graphically provide an at-a-glance indication of public
sentiment and can simplify navigation. Tagging provides the public with
the ability to tag or label information they or someone else has posted
to the site to ease navigation and to promote the formation of common
interest categories. The Educational Tool will inform the public about
the Federal rulemaking process through interactive text and images. The
Data Export capability enables the public to download and review the
contents of a rulemaking docket as well as mix and match such
information with other information in a new way (also known as a
``mash-up''). The Regulations.gov ``feedback exchange'' will rely on
feedback from Government, Industry, Academia and Citizenry to improve
Regulations.gov as time goes on.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 35
hours per year. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements which have
subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a
collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the
collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Affected Entities: Anyone that chooses to visit Regulations.gov.
    Estimated Total Number of Potential Respondents: 1,000.
    Estimated Total Number of Potential Responses: 7,000.
    Frequency of Response: Occasionally.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 35 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Capital and Operations and Maintenance
Costs: $ 0.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: May 19, 2009.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E9-12132 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2234]
[DOCID:fr14ja08-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-49-000]

Distrigas of Massachusetts Corporation; Notice of Application for
Abandonment of Sales Services

January 4, 2008.
    Take notice that on December 19, 2007, Distrigas of Massachusetts
LLC (DOMAC), One Liberty Square, 10th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts
02109, filed an application under section 3 and section 7 of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) to obtain authorization: (1) For the abandonment
of services provided pursuant to DOMAC's FERC Gas Tariff, First
Revisited Volume No. 1 (Tariff) and under DOMAC's amended certificate
of public convenience and necessity; (2) for the cancellation of
DOMAC's Tariff, including all of its rate schedules contained therein;
and (3) to retain certain existing rate and service terms now
applicable to its liquid sales only pursuant to section 3 of the NGA
based upon the Commission's acceptance of their Terms of Liquid
Service; to become applicable to liquid sales upon such approval.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this filing should be directed to Mr.
Robert A. Nailling, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary,
Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC, One Liberty Square, 10th Floor, Boston,
Massachusetts 02109, or Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    DOMAC states that it purchases liquefied natural gas (LNG) imported
by Distrigas LLC from various international sources. Distrigas LLC is a
corporate affiliate of DOMAC. DOMAC then resells the LNG in vapor and
liquid form to its customers located throughout the northeastern United
States. DOMAC's customers include local distribution companies, gas
marketers, and end-users, including electric power generation plants.
DOMAC proposes to continue to make such sales of LNG in liquid and
vapor form subject only to the Commission's jurisdiction under section
3 of the NGA, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. DOMAC
proposes that sales of vaporized LNG will be under flexible, negotiate
contracts with market-responsive terms not subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction. However, DOMAC proposes a Statement of Terms and
Conditions for Liquid Service incorporating terms and conditions from
the current Tariff, to apply only to liquid sales. DOMAC requests that
the proposed abandonment of such sales pursuant to its amended
certificate under section 7 of the NGA and the Terms of Liquid Service
be effective as of April 1, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date shown
below. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy
of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    Comment Date: January 25, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-399 Filed 1-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P