Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages |
|---|
Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Raymond R. Posten
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
March 2, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 40 (Monday, March 2, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11148-11153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04162]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0036]
RIN 2127-AL05
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assembly
Anchorages
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11149]]
SUMMARY: This document supplements NHTSA's March 2012 notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages,'' to specify
a force application device (FAD) for use as a testing interface to
transfer loads onto the seat belt anchorage system during compliance
tests of anchorage strength. The agency received a number of comments
on the NPRM that raised issues concerning the feasibility of the FAD
proposal. After reviewing the comments, NHTSA has decided to propose in
this SNPRM an alternative test procedure, i.e., one that would maintain
the current FMVSS No. 210 body blocks and adopt procedures ensuring
that the placement of the body blocks, at pre-load, is sufficiently
specified. The agency requests comments on this alternative strategy
and other potential enhancements to the current body block test
procedure.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 1, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should state the
docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.
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 notice published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Ms. Carla Rush,
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
(telephone 202-366-4583, fax 202-493-2739).
For legal issues: Mr. John Piazza, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-2992, fax 202-366-3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
a. NPRM for New FAD
b. FMVSS No. 210
c. History Surrounding the Development of the FAD
II. Overview of NPRM Comments
a. Design and Performance of the FAD Device
b. Harmonization
c. Proposed Test Procedure
d. Cost and Lead Time
III. Alternative Strategy Under Consideration--Maintaining the Body
Blocks and Refining the Test Procedure
a. Preliminary Zone Concept for Placement of the Body Blocks
b. Planned Research To Evaluate Alternative Strategy
IV. Request for Public Comments on Alternative Strategy
V. Public Participation
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
a. NPRM for New FAD
On March 30, 2012, the agency published in the Federal Register an
NPRM (77 FR 19155) that proposed to amend FMVSS No. 210 to replace the
pelvic body block and the upper torso body block with a new Force
Application Device (FAD). The rationale provided for the proposal
included the FAD's ease of use, that it is representative of the human
form, and, most importantly, that it provides a consistent test
configuration and load path to the seat belt assembly anchorages
without affecting the stringency of the compliance test.
b. FMVSS No. 210
FMVSS No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages,'' applies to
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. The
standard establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to
ensure the anchorages are properly located for effective occupant
restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. As to the
latter, the standard requires seat belt anchorages to withstand
specified forces to increase the likelihood that the belts will remain
attached to the vehicle structure in a crash. Under the standard, seat
belt anchorage assemblies for combination lap/shoulder belts must
withstand a 13,345 Newton (N) force (3,000 pounds) applied to the lap
belt portion of the seat belt assembly simultaneously with a 13,345 N
force applied to the shoulder belt portion of the seat belt assembly.
The 13,345 N force must be attained in not more than 30 seconds and
maintained for 10 seconds.\1\ In the current standard, these forces are
applied to the shoulder portion of the belt (for a lap/shoulder belt)
by an upper torso body block (Figure 3 in FMVSS No. 210) and the lap
belt portion of the belt by a pelvic body block \2\ (Figures 2A and 2B
in FMVSS No. 210).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For lap belt-only anchorages, the seat belt anchorage must
withstand a force as it is increased to 22,241 N (5,000 pounds) in
not more than thirty seconds and withstand that force as it is held
for 10 seconds.
\2\ The particular pelvic body block used depends on the type of
seat. Typically the body block in Figure 2A of FMVSS No. 210 is
used. The Figure 2B body block of FMVSS No. 210 is optionally used
for center seating positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. History Surrounding the Development of the FAD
The current standard does not expressly specify the position the
body blocks must be in relative to the seat prior to the strength
testing. The absence of this information has, in the past, resulted in
manufacturers conducting compliance testing differently than NHTSA, as
illustrated in an enforcement action brought against a manufacturer in
the 1990s for an apparent noncompliance with FMVSS No. 210.\3\ In the
compliance test at issue in the Chrysler case, NHTSA positioned the
pelvic body block away from the rear seat back. Chrysler argued that
its vehicle met FMVSS No. 210 when tested with the body block placed
against the seat back, and that NHTSA's placement of the pelvic body
block forward of the seat back was not required by FMVSS No. 210.
Ultimately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit determined that NHTSA failed to provide adequate notice about
the correct placement of the pelvic body block during the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See United States v. Chrysler Corp., 158 F.3d 1350 (D.C.
Cir. 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM proposing the FAD, the agency identified several other
challenges associated with the use of the body blocks in addition to
the issues
[[Page 11150]]
with positioning the devices. First, the body blocks typically require
two technicians to position them, and positioning may be a somewhat
iterative process because the upper torso block can move in a way that
causes a loss of tension during set-up. Additionally, due to the range
of motion associated with the body blocks (which can move independently
of each other), there can be some spooling out of the seat belt webbing
during an FMVSS No. 210 test. For some test fixtures utilizing a
hydraulic ram with a fixed stroke, the ram can reach its full stroke
before a requisite force level is reached.
In order to address the issues identified by the Chrysler court and
resolve some of the challenges associated with the test set-up and
performance of the body blocks, the agency embarked on a program to
develop a new FMVSS No. 210 test device. The FAD consists of an upper
torso portion and a pelvic portion hinged together to form a one-piece
device, and is available in two sizes. The two different size versions
of the FADs are called FAD1 and FAD2. The external dimensions of the
FAD1 are based on digital data developed by the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) as a representation of the
50th percentile adult male.\4\ NHTSA developed the specifications for
the FAD2, a smaller version of the force application device, to use at
designated seating positions that are too narrow in width to
accommodate the FAD1, such as some rear center seats in passenger cars
and multipurpose passenger vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Robbins, D., ``Anthropometric Specifications for Mid-Size
Male Dummy,'' Volume 2, UMTRI, DOT HS 806 716 (1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Overview of NPRM Comments
The agency received 13 comments in response to the NPRM from
vehicle manufacturers and groups, suppliers, and a test facility.\5\
The commenters stated a number of concerns with the proposed use of the
FAD. We believe that many of the commenters' concerns and questions
might stem from lack of hands-on experience with the new FAD. While
these comments will be responded to in the final notice, they are
briefly summarized in the following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ These included: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,
Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, Inc., National Truck
Equipment Association, Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association,
Hino Motors, Ltd., Navistar, Inc., Daimler Trucks North America,
Nissan North America, Inc., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., EvoBus
GmbH, Freedman Seating Company, Johnson Controls, Inc., and T[Uuml]V
Rheinland Kraftfahrt GmbH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Design and Performance of the FAD Device
Several commenters raised concerns associated with the performance
of their seat belt assemblies during compliance testing if tested with
the FADs. The medium to heavy-duty vehicle industry was notably
concerned with the lack of testing with the FAD on medium to heavy-duty
trucks and how the FAD could potentially affect the performance of
their seat belt anchorages during compliance testing. A number of
commenters noted the differences in the FAD's range of motion (i.e.,
the manner in which the FAD moved during testing) and load values (in
NHTSA's testing) in comparison to the current body blocks.
The agency also received several comments on the FAD's design.
Commenters questioned the durability and strength of the FADs since the
agency did not conduct tests to failure, as commenters suggested that
vehicle manufacturers do. There were also concerns with respect to the
potential for seat belt slippage during FAD testing because of the
FAD's polyurethane smoothness. Commenters also believed there was
potential for certain FAD parts to cause damage to the seat belt
webbing, and expressed concern about an observation that the bridged
pull yoke digs into the seat. Others asked why a test device with a
human form is superior to the current blocks, and some made note of the
increased weight of the FAD versus the current body blocks. Commenters
also suggested checking the completeness of the drawing package (e.g.,
tolerances, indicating where forces should be applied) and requested 3-
D data for the FADs.
b. Harmonization
Harmonization with other countries was also a reason some
commenters gave for not supporting the use of the FAD. They argued that
the use of the FAD would require additional testing on their part and
would increase test costs. Several commenters suggested initiating a
Global Technical Regulation to facilitate global harmonization.
c. Proposed Test Procedure
Several commenters raised questions or concerns regarding the
proposed test procedure for the FADs. For example, there were requests
for clarification on: Contact between adjacent FADs and the vehicle
interior at pre-load and during the test; the belt slack procedure; the
test position for an adjustable turning loop; the seating procedure
when the seat centerline is not aligned with the seating reference
point; and where exactly the forces need to be applied on the FAD.
Commenters also suggested reducing the hold time requirement for the
required load. Questions were also raised surrounding the proposed
procedure for determining when to replace a FAD1 with a FAD2, and some
suggestions were made on this procedure that pertain to only buses.
Commenters also questioned the appropriateness of testing side-facing
seats with the FADs and requested clarification on the associated pull
direction. Additional suggestions were made regarding the proposed test
procedure that include the use of a dedicated test belt and the use of
a booster seat for the FAD2 based on its shoulder height.
d. Cost and Lead Time
Cost burden and lead time were major sources of concern,
particularly for the medium to heavy-duty vehicle industry. Commenters
argued that the cost of acquiring the FADs was underestimated.
Commenters also stated that they would have to conduct tests to verify
that the use of the FAD does not affect the compliance of their
vehicles with the FMVSS No. 210 requirements, and if in fact it did
affect the performance, they would incur redesign and certification
costs. In addition, commenters stated that not harmonizing with the
requirements of other countries would also drive up test costs. They
suggest these costs far outweigh any cost savings attributed to the
ease of use of the FADs. Some suggestions to reduce the burden of the
proposal were to make the FAD an optional test device, or allow testing
with the current body blocks for vehicles that are certified by their
use and only require the use of the FAD when the vehicle undergoes
recertification. Others suggested extending the lead time for any
changeover to the FAD, and delaying the use of the FAD until it is a
globally harmonized test device.
III. Alternative Strategy Under Consideration--Maintaining the Body
Blocks and Refining the Test Procedure
The FAD was developed in order to, among other things, provide a
consistent test configuration and load path to the seat belt assembly
anchorages without affecting the stringency of the testing. Given the
comments received on the NPRM, the agency has decided to evaluate the
feasibility of maintaining the current body blocks and refining the
test procedure such that the standard provides sufficient information
about the pre-test positioning of the body blocks so that manufacturers
are
[[Page 11151]]
informed of the range of positions that may be tested to determine
compliance.
We emphasize that although the agency is considering the option of
retaining the body blocks and refining the FMVSS No. 210 test
procedure, the agency is still considering replacing the body blocks
with the FAD, as proposed in the March 2012 NPRM, or possibly
incorporating the FAD as an optional testing tool. The comments
received in response to this SNPRM, along with the comments already
received in response to the NPRM, as well as the results of the
agency's ongoing research and development, will inform the agency's
final decision.
a. Preliminary Zone Concept for Placement of the Body Blocks
The agency is considering specifying zones within which the body
blocks would be placed for testing purposes, as it has already done in
FMVSS No. 222, ``School bus passenger seating and crash protection.''
(See final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 222, 73 FR 62744, October 21,
2008.) As part of the 2008 upgrade to FMVSS No. 222, the agency adopted
a positioning procedure for the torso body block used in the quasi-
static test for lap/shoulder seat belts on school buses. The procedure
establishes a zone in which the body block must be located.
Specifically, after the pre-load application is complete, the origin of
the torso body block radius \6\ at any point across the torso body
block thickness must lie within a zone defined by specified boundaries.
The forward boundary of this zone is established by a transverse
vertical plane of the vehicle located 100 mm longitudinally forward of
the seating reference point. The upper and lower boundaries of the zone
are 75 mm above and below the horizontal plane located midway between
the horizontal plane passing through the school bus torso belt adjusted
height (specified in S3 of FMVSS No. 210), and the horizontal plane 100
mm below the seating reference point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The phrase ``origin of the torso body block radius'' is used
in FMVSS No. 222. The phrase refers to the center of the flat edge
of the torso body block.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is considering the possibility of utilizing zones such
as the above for the initial placement of the current body blocks for
FMVSS No. 210 compliance testing. Separate zones may be established for
the torso and pelvic body blocks. By refining the current test
procedure to include these zones, NHTSA intends for the standard to be
clearer as to how the agency will position the current body blocks. The
agency does not intend to increase the stringency of the standard per
se.
b. Planned Research To Evaluate Alternative Strategy
The agency has initiated research to aid in the development of the
zones bounding the initial placement for the current body blocks. The
research will evaluate the zone concept across different vehicle types
and seat configurations and establish the appropriate zone boundaries
to ensure that it is feasible and practicable for all vehicles. This
research will involve a range of seat and vehicle types including heavy
vehicles. The research is expected to be completed in the winter of
2015.
IV. Request for Public Comments on Alternative Strategy
To assist the agency in evaluating whether and how to amend the
current test procedure in order to maintain the use of the body blocks,
NHTSA invites comments on the zone concept that is under consideration,
as well as other possible solutions. Specifically, we request comments
on, but not limited to, how the zones should be established in the
vehicle environment, how to verify that the body blocks are within the
specified zones under pre-load in the vehicle environment, and any
make/model-specific issues that would impact the implementation of the
proposed body block positioning procedure for all vehicles that must
meet FMVSS No. 210. NHTSA encourages commenters to provide specific
information or views on this matter and requests that the rationale for
the comments be specific and supported by data, including any relevant
analyses. While we do not intend to preclude commenters from
identifying potential alternative solutions, we ask that the
commenters' recommendations be consistent with the existing standard
requirements and test procedure.
V. 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 of 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.
Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging into http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
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 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish DOT's Docket Management Facility 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 Management Facility will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
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 received 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.
[[Page 11152]]
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments at DOT's Docket Management Facility at
the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the facility 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 http://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.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
a. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking was not reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking action has also been determined
to be not significant under the Department's regulatory policies and
procedures.
The cost impact of using the current FMVSS No. 210 body blocks
would be minimal to nonexistent, since the status quo would basically
be maintained.\7\ The agency might develop procedures for installing
and positioning the existing body blocks, but NHTSA does not believe
that there would be significant incremental costs associated with using
the procedures to test for compliance with FMVSS No. 210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The estimated impact of the proposal to adopt the FAD was
discussed in the preamble to the March 30, 2012 NPRM (77 FR at
19159).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, requires
agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final
rules on small businesses, small organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions. I hereby certify that the approach considered by this
SNPRM would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) size standard
regulation at 13 CFR part 121, ``Small business size regulations,''
prescribes small business size standards by North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes. NAICS code 336111, Automobile
Manufacturing prescribes a small business size standard of 1,000 or
fewer employees. NAICS code 336399, All Other Motor Vehicle Parts
Manufacturing, prescribes a small business size standard of 750 or
fewer employees. Although the majority of motor vehicle manufacturers
would not qualify as a small business, there are a number of vehicle
manufacturers that are small businesses. This SNPRM would not have a
significant economic impact on these small businesses because the
approach considered by this document would basically adopt the status
quo used in FMVSS No. 210. The agency might develop procedures for
installing and positioning the existing body blocks, but NHTSA does not
believe that there would be significant incremental costs associated
with using the procedures to test for compliance with FMVSS No. 210.
Small organizations and small governmental units would not be
significantly affected by this SNPRM since the potential cost impacts
associated with this action would not significantly affect the price of
new motor vehicles. The cost impact of using the current FMVSS No. 210
body blocks is minimal to nonexistent, since the status quo would
basically be maintained.
c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's SNPRM 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 proposed 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 described 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 Orders 13132 and 12988, 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 and objectives of
today's proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many
NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such,
NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule would preempt state tort
law that would
[[Page 11153]]
effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
than that established by today's proposed rule. Establishment of a
higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the
minimum standard proposed here. Without any conflict, there could not
be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year
of 1995). UMRA also requires an agency issuing a final rule subject to
the Act to select the ``least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.'' If
made final, this proposed rule would not result in a Federal mandate
that would likely 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 annually for inflation, with base year
of 1995).
e. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
f. Executive Order 12778 (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 proposed 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.
g. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
Under the PRA 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. In this notice of proposed
rulemaking, we are not proposing any ``collections of information'' (as
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)).
h. 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 the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
International. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
The agency identified an ISO technical report (TR 1417-1974) and an
SAE International standard (J384, Rev. JUN94) that have testing
recommendations for vehicle seat belt anchorages. Both recommend the
use of body blocks, similar to those currently specified in FMVSS No.
210, for applying the required test loads. The alternative strategy the
agency is now considering in this SNPRM would continue the use of the
FMVSS No. 210 body blocks. Accordingly, the alternative strategy
employing the current body blocks is consistent with the ISO report and
SAE standard. However, NHTSA has tentatively determined that the ISO
report and SAE standard, among other matters, do not specify the
positioning of the body blocks referenced in both with sufficient
specificity to achieve the goals of this rulemaking. Thus, NHTSA has
decided to base this SNPRM on the existing FMVSS No. 210 body blocks
rather than explore using new ones, and to develop possible test
procedures that make clear how the body blocks are to be positioned
during FMVSS No. 210 compliance testing.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-04162 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P