Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Test Procedures

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Test Procedures

Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Test Procedures

James C. Owens
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
11 December 2020

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79456-79460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27001]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0109]
RIN 2127-AM04

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Test Procedures

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is issuing this ANPRM to seek public comment on whether
any test procedures for any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS) may be a candidate for replacement, repeal, or modification,
for reasons other than for considerations relevant only to automated
driving systems (ADS). This document is a continuation of the Agency's
efforts to improve the FMVSS and minimize burdens. The Agency takes
this action in response to its review of the FMVSS and to public
comments solicited by DOT in a 2017 notice on its regulatory reform
efforts. The commenters requested that NHTSA amend test procedures for
air brakes and occupant crash protection. NHTSA has also identified
some possible additional test procedure issues and discusses them in
this Notice. In addition, this ANPRM also seeks comments and supporting
information relating to any other test procedures which may be a
candidate for replacement, repeal or modification, not just those
specifically discussed in this Notice.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than February 8, 2021. See
the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information
section of this document for more information about written comments.

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: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
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'' heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any docket 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

[[Page 79457]]

DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
Confidential 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 of NHTSA, at
the address given 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 the
confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Versailles, Office of
Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2057.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Example Test Procedures
A. FMVSS No. 103
B. FMVSS No. 104
C. FMVSS Nos. 105/135
D. FMVSS No. 121
E. FMVSS No. 126
III. Questions Requesting Further Information From the Public
IV. Public Participation
V. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses

I. Background

On October 2, 2017, the Department of Transportation (DOT)
published a Notice in the Federal Register inviting ``the public to
provide input on existing rules and other agency actions that are good
candidates for repeal, replacement, suspension, or modification.'' \1\
DOT received almost 3,000 comments in response to this Notice, of which
approximately twenty-three addressed rules and agency actions under the
scope of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In
response to these public comments, and on the Agency's own initiative,
the agency is planning to issue a series of advance notices of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRMs) on various regulatory reform topics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 82 FR 45750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This ANPRM specifically discusses test procedures \2\ that may be
candidates for replacement, repeal, or modification. This Notice does
not address the performance requirements within the standards, but only
the test procedures specified in the standards for NHTSA to use to
verify compliance. Additionally, this Notice does not address issues
related to test procedures relevant only to technologies for automated
driving systems (ADS), commonly referred to as automated or self-
driving vehicles. Comments on test procedures that may be candidates
for repeal, replacement, or modification to permit the introduction and
certification of ADS would be more appropriate for the ANPRM for RIN
2127-AM00 \3\ or one of the topic-specific ANPRMs. NHTSA also notes
that the specific test procedures discussed in the remainder of this
Notice are not meant to be an exclusive listing of the test procedures
that may be suitable candidates for replacement, repeal, or
modification. Rather, these tests procedures are intended to serve as
examples for why a test procedure might be a candidate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ As used in this notice, ``test procedures'' includes test
conditions, test procedures, and test devices (e.g., dummies and
crash barriers).
\3\ 84 FR 24433, May 29, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Example Test Procedures

As discussed in this section, NHTSA, partially in response to
comments, has identified possible examples of test procedures that
might be candidates for replacement, repeal, or modification. These are
discussed below to illustrate the kinds of test procedures for which
the Agency would like to seek comment for this Notice. DOT received a
few comments from trade associations that addressed test procedure
changes. The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (``EMA''; DOT-
OST-2017-0069-2786) commented on the test procedures of FMVSS No. 121,
but, as discussed below, NHTSA would like more information on the
request to understand better EMA's suggestion. The Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (``Alliance''; DOT-OST-2017-0069-2700), raised
issues relating to FMVSS Nos. 208 and 209. The Association of Global
Automakers (``Global''; DOT-OST-2017-0069-2772) raised the same issue
as the Alliance relating to FMVSS No. 208, but did not address FMVSS
No. 209. Both the Alliance and Global suggested changes to FMVSS Nos.
208 and 209 that appear to go beyond test procedure changes. Because
these comments require consideration of both performance requirements
and test procedures, the comments are discussed in the ANPRM for RIN
2127-AM05, which deals with regulatory barriers in the performance
requirements for non-ADS vehicles.

A. FMVSS No. 103

Compliance with the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 103,
Windshield defrosting and defogging systems (49 CFR 571.103), is
determined by the Agency using a test procedure incorporated from SAE
Recommended Practice J902 (August 1964 or March 1967), which is
predicated on a vehicle's having a conventional internal combustion
engine (ICE). The Agency is considering whether these procedures should
be revised or modified for vehicles with other types of propulsion and
requests comment on this issue.

B. FMVSS 104

Determination of compliance with the performance requirements of
FMVSS 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems (49 CFR 571.104), has
the same test procedure issue as FMVSS 103 since it is also predicated
on the vehicle's having an ICE. In addition, should the test procedure
be updated for newer systems with rain sensor technology?

C. FMVSS 105/135

FMVSS 105, Hydraulic and electric brake systems (49 CFR 571.105),
is applicable to multi-purpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and
buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,500 kilograms (kg;
7,716 pounds (lbs)) or more equipped with hydraulically or electrically
actuated brakes. The standard has not been updated since 1976. NHTSA
has a similar brake standard, FMVSS No. 135, Light vehicle brake
systems (49 CFR 571.135), which went into effect in 1995 and applies to
hydraulically braked vehicles, but with a GVWR less than 3,500 kg.
Should the Agency revise the test procedures in either of these brake
standards to improve clarity or efficiency for compliance?
For example, the FMVSS Nos. 105/135 braking tests could be revised
consistent with FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems (49 CFR
571.122), as it relates to the number of stopping attempts for each
specified test condition. FMVSS Nos. 105/135 specifies, in most test
conditions, the completion of no fewer than six stops regardless of
which of the stops, or how many of them, meet the stopping distance
performance requirement. FMVSS No. 122, on the other hand,

[[Page 79458]]

permits the skipping of the remaining stops (if any) for that test and
allowing the next test to be performed once a passing stop is obtained,
even if that occurs before the specified number of stops are made.
Should FMVSS Nos. 105/135 be updated and would this change reduce
testing time and cost without compromising the safety evaluation of the
braking system?

D. FMVSS No. 121

EMA commented that, despite a number of revisions in the past,
FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems (49 CFR 571.121), has not kept pace
with advances in heavy-duty air brake components and systems. While
indicating that a number of modifications would be appropriate to
address this issue, EMA did not elaborate on them. The Agency requests
more information about the modifications that would update the standard
to keep pace with advances in heavy-duty air brake components and
systems, and why, specifically, they are needed.

E. FMVSS No. 126

Section 6.3.4 of FMVSS No. 126, Electronic stability control
systems (49 CFR 571.126), specifies the use of outriggers \4\ when
testing MPVs, trucks, and buses, but not when testing passenger cars.
Today's vehicle market includes crossover vehicles which are classified
as MPVs but which are typically based on passenger car platforms,
unlike traditional MPVs, which are based on light truck platforms. What
evidence is there that crossover vehicles perform more like passenger
cars than traditional MPVs, and how would updating the test procedure
to remove the outriggers be justified? If the Agency was to specify the
use of outriggers based on criteria other than just vehicle
classification, what would commenters recommend for criteria? Would
modifying the criteria improve efficiency and reduce the need for these
devices in some testing, thereby reducing costs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ An outrigger is a stabilizing device attached to the vehicle
to protect the vehicle and/or driver from rollover during test
maneuvers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Questions Requesting Further Information From the Public

In order to inform the Agency as it works toward possible
rulemaking proposals, NHTSA invites comments on any other test
procedures that are potential candidates for replacement, repeal, or
modification. NHTSA again emphasizes that the test procedures discussed
in Sections II and III of this notice are just examples of test
procedures that might be a candidate for replacement, repeal, or
modification, and thus illustrate the types of reasons why such a
change may be necessary. NHTSA requests comments on the specific test
procedure issues discussed above, other issues related to the test
procedures for the FMVSSs discussed above, and issues related to the
test procedures for any other FMVSS. For example, a test procedure may
specify testing that is no longer necessary, or may not be clear about
how to test vehicles with newer technology, or may even have the effect
of prohibiting the introduction of such vehicles. The Agency requests
that commenters provide as much research, evidence, or data as possible
to support their comments, as that information will be of great
assistance to the Agency as it considers whether to develop a proposal
to revise the procedure.
In addition, commenters should consider the following general
questions when considering potential test procedure improvements:
1. Do any test procedures specify the use of equipment that is
obsolete or no longer available at a reasonable cost? If so, what
options are available as replacements?
2. Do any test procedures specify the use of equipment in a manner
that is more specific than necessary to ensure that the test procedure
be repeatable and reproducible?
3. Are there test procedures in regulations from standards
organizations or other countries that evaluate compliance with the same
requirement as one in an FMVSS? If so, what evidence is there that the
test procedure provides an evaluation of compliance with the
requirement in a manner and to an extent equivalent to the current test
procedure in the FMVSS?
4. What specific problems and challenges have testing laboratories,
researchers, or other entities encountered when trying to follow
existing test procedures in an FMVSS? For each problem or challenge,
please explain how it is currently addressed and any suggested
solutions for how it should be addressed in the future.
5. Are there any test procedures that do not accurately reflect
real-world scenarios? If so, what evidence is there to show that a test
procedure needs to be updated to reflect real-world scenarios being
tested more accurately? Similarly, how can test procedures be updated
to represent a real-world scenario more accurately?
6. Are there any loopholes in test procedures that could lead to a
passing test result without meeting the intent of a standard or
regulation? If so, how can such loopholes be closed by updating the
test procedure?

V. Public Participation

a. How can I influence NHTSA's thinking on this subject?

Your comments will help NHTSA improve its consideration of issues
raised by this ANPRM. NHTSA invites you to provide different views on
options NHTSA discusses, new approaches the agency has not considered,
new data, descriptions of how this ANPRM may affect you, or other
relevant information.
NHTSA welcomes public review on all aspects of this ANPRM. NHTSA
will consider the comments and information received in developing a
potential proposal for updating test procedures for motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment. Your comments will be most effective if you
follow the suggestions below:
Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
Provide solid evidence and data to support your views.
If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived
at that estimate.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
Offer specific alternatives.
Refer your comments to the specific sections of (or
questions listed in) the ANPRM.

b. How do I prepare and submit comments?

Your primary comments should be written in English. To ensure that
your comments are filed in the correct docket, please include the
docket number of this document in your comments.
Your primary comments should not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR
553.21), however, you may attach additional documents, such as
supporting data or research, to your primary comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket
following the instructions given in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this document. Please note, if you are submitting comments
electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents
submitted be scanned using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of
your submission.

[[Page 79459]]

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. DOT's guidelines may be accessed
at www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.

c. How can I be sure that my comments were received?

If you submit comments by hard copy and wish Docket Management 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, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail. If you submit comments electronically, your comments should
appear automatically in the docket on www.regulations.gov. If they do
not appear within two weeks of posting, NHTSA suggests that you call
the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.

d. How do I submit confidential business information?

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you must submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information that you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
In addition, you should submit a copy (two copies if submitting by
mail or hand delivery) from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information to the docket by one of the methods
given above under ADDRESSES. When you submit a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in
NHTSA's confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

e. Will the Agency consider late comments?

NHTSA will consider all comments that the docket receives before
the close of business on the comment closing date indicated in the
DATES section. To the extent possible, NHTSA will also consider
comments that the docket receives after that date.

f. How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given in the ADDRESSES section. The hours of the docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also read the comments on the
internet, identified by the docket number at the heading of this
notice, at www.regulations.gov. Please note that, even after the
comment closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant information
in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, NHTSA recommends that you periodically
check the docket for new material.

VI. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses

a. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review'' (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), supplements and reaffirms the
principles established by Executive Order 12866 by encouraging
harmonization of regulations across agencies and requiring agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain
flexibility and freedom of choice. Additionally, Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 require agencies to provide a meaningful opportunity for
public participation. Accordingly, we have asked commenters to answer a
variety of questions to elicit practical information about alternative
approaches and relevant technical data on whether and how best to
update test procedures throughout 49 CFR part 571. These comments will
help the Department evaluate whether a proposed rulemaking is needed
and appropriate.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this ANPRM under Executive Order
12866, Executive Order 13563, and the DOT's regulatory policies and
procedures. As discussed in this notice, the Agency lacks the necessary
information to develop a proposal at this time due to a number of
unanswered questions and unresolved considerations. However, NHTSA
anticipates that any proposal that was to result from this Notice could
have minor economic impact by clarifying how newer technology is
tested, or could result in cost-savings by eliminating unnecessary
aspects of test procedures. Therefore, this rulemaking has been
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of
the Office of Management and Budget.

b. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs)

This action is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR
9339, February 3, 2017) because it is an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.

c. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
no analysis is required for an ANPRM. However, small entities,
including small vehicle manufacturers and equipment manufacturers, are
encouraged to comment if they identify any aspects of a potential
rulemaking that may apply to them.

d. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

NHTSA does not believe that there would be sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The
purpose of this rulemaking is not to adopt new safety performance
requirements which would preempt non-identical State requirements, but
merely to revise test procedures for existing safety performance
requirements that would not affect their stringency.

e. 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

[[Page 79460]]

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.

f. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 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. There are no
information collection requirements associated with this ANPRM. Any
information collection requirements and the associated burdens will be
discussed in detail once a proposal has been issued.

g. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical.
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 Society of Automotive Engineers. The
NTTAA directs us to provide Congress (through OMB) with explanations
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. As NHTSA has not yet developed specific regulatory
provisions, the NTTAA does not apply for purposes of this ANPRM.

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 of 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). NHTSA has
determined that this ANPRM 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. National Environmental Policy Act

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

j. Plain Language

The Plain Language Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires
that Federal agencies write documents in a clear, concise, and well-
organized manner. While the Act does not cover regulations, Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 require each agency to write all notices in
plain language that is simple and easy to understand. 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 notice clearly stated?
Does the notice contain technical language or jargon that
is not 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?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this ANPRM.

k. Regulatory 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.

Issued in Washington, DC.

Under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95 and 501.5.
James C. Owens,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-27001 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P