[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24265-24267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12033]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 96-46; Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AF91
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assembly
Anchorages
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a petition from Volvo, this notice proposes to
require manufacturers to certify the anchorages of a voluntarily
installed Type 2 safety belt (lap/shoulder belt) to the anchorage
requirements for a mandatorily installed Type 2 safety belt. Currently,
if only a Type 1 safety belt (lap belt) is required for a particular
seating position, a manufacturer must certify the anchorage(s) for the
belt(s) it installs at that position to the anchorage requirements for
a Type 1 belt, even if the manufacturer installs a Type 2 safety belt
at that location.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590:
For non-legal issues: Clarke B. Harper, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, NPS-11, telephone (202) 366-2264, facsimile (202) 366-4329,
electronic mail charper@nhtsa.dot.gov''.
For legal issues: Mary Versailles, Office of the Chief Counsel,
NCC-20, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic
mail mversailles@nhtsa.dot.gov''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210,``Seat Belt
Anchorages,'' requires the anchorages for mandatorily installed Type 2
safety belts to withstand the simultaneous application of a 3,000-pound
load applied to the lap belt anchorages and a separate 3,000-pound load
to the shoulder belt anchorages. When only a Type 1 safety belt is
required, Standard No. 210 requires the anchorages for the lap belt to
withstand a 5,000-pound load. If a manufacturer voluntarily installs a
Type 2 safety belt at a seating position for which only a Type 1 safety
belt is required, the lap belt portion is required to withstand a
5,000-pound load. but the shoulder belt portion is subject to no
requirement.
Currently, manufacturers need only install a Type 1 safety belt at
the following seating positions:
The passenger seats in school buses with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less;
All seats in vehicles, except passenger seats in buses,
including school buses, with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds; and,
All seats, except forward-facing outboard seats, in all
other vehicles.
Volvo's Petition
On May 18, 1995, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. (Volvo)
petitioned NHTSA to amend Standard No. 210. Volvo stated that it
subjects the anchorages of its voluntarily installed Type 2 safety
belts to two different tests. Pursuant to Standard No. 210, it tests
the anchorages of the lap belt portion of those belts for compliance
with the anchorage requirements for a Type 1 safety belt. In addition,
for quality control purposes, it tests the anchorages of its
voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belts for compliance with the
requirements for the anchorages of mandatorily installed Type 2 safety
belts. To reduce the amount of testing, Volvo requests that the
Standard be amended to give manufacturers a choice of certifying the
anchorages of a voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belt either to the
requirements for a Type 1 safety belt anchorage or to the requirements
for a Type 2 safety belt anchorage. The adoption of its request would
allow Volvo to cease the separate testing of the lap belt portion of
its voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belts.
Agency Proposal
While Volvo asked NHTSA to allow manufacturers an option, NHTSA is
proposing to require manufacturers that voluntarily install an integral
Type 2 safety belt to certify the anchorages of that belt to the
requirements for Type 2 safety belt anchorages.
First, there does not appear to be a reason for testing non-
dynamically tested integral Type 2 safety belt anchorages differently
based on whether the installation is mandatory or voluntary.
Second, the load applied by an occupant to the lap belt portion of
a Type 2 safety belt would be lower than the load applied by the same
occupant to a Type 1 safety belt, since part of the occupant's load
would be borne by the shoulder belt. Thus, if the load requirements for
the lap belt anchorages of a mandatory Type 2 safety belt are
appropriate to meet the need for motor vehicle safety, it appears that
the current requirements for the lap belt anchorages of a voluntarily
installed Type 2 safety belt are excessive.
Finally, in the past, NHTSA has experienced difficulties in
enforcing standards that give manufacturers the option of complying
with any one of a set of alternative requirements. Generally, NHTSA
will ask a manufacturer to specify which of the alternatives the agency
should apply in a compliance test. In some instances when agency
testing indicates that a
[[Page 24266]]
vehicle has an apparent non-compliance with the alternative specified
by the manufacturer, the manufacturer has argued that the vehicle
should nevertheless be regarded as being in compliance since it would
comply with another alternative. NHTSA has then had to incur the
expense of a second compliance test to determine whether it should
continue with enforcement proceedings. This proposal would prevent such
an enforcement problem with respect to anchorages for voluntarily
installed Type 2 safety belts.
International Harmonization
This proposal would harmonize this aspect of Standard No. 210 with
the counterpart regulation of the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE
R14, ``Safety-Belt Anchorages''). ECE14 specifies two options for seats
equipped with lap and shoulder belt anchorages. The first option
consists of two tests which apparently address the possibility that
while such a seat might be initially equipped with only a Type 1 belt,
it might at some later point be equipped with a Type 2 safety belt.
Test 1 simultaneously subjects the anchorages for the lap and shoulder
belt portions to loads similar to the 3,000 pound loads in Standard No.
210. Test 2 subjects the anchorages for the lap belt portion to a load
similar to the 5,000 pound load in Standard No. 210. The second option
consists of only the first of these tests. If a Type 2 safety belt is
initially installed at the seating position, ECE R14 specifies
compliance with the second option. Under those circumstances, NHTSA's
proposal specifies essentially the same test.
Cost Savings and Safety Impacts
The adoption of this proposal could result in minor reductions in
manufacturing costs and compliance costs. If a manufacturer voluntarily
installed a Type 2 safety belt, it might decide to install lap belt
anchorages capable of withstanding a 3,000 pound load, but not the
5,000 pound load currently required. NHTSA believes that the cost
savings from such a design change would be less than $1 per vehicle. In
addition, manufacturers which currently certify the anchorages of
voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belts to the requirements of
Standard No. 210 for Type 1 safety belts and also choose to test those
anchorages to the requirements for Type 2 anchorages would save
approximately $1,400 per vehicle model as a result of not having to
conduct a test to certify to the Type 1 anchorage requirements. For
Volvo, this could result in a total annual cost savings from both
design and test changes of approximately $100,000.
Approximately 90 percent of all trucks with a GVWR of more than
10,000 pounds have Type 2 safety belts installed at the front outboard
seats, even though the minimum requirement is for a Type 1 safety belt.
For this vehicle population, the annual cost savings from design
changes could be approximately $770,000. This figure does not include
the $1,400 for each certification test. The number of voluntarily-
installed lap/shoulder belts is increasing as other manufacturers are
beginning to install lap/shoulder safety belts at seating positions
that are only required to have a lap belt.
While manufacturers might be able to install less strong lap belt
anchorages under the proposed change, NHTSA does not believe there will
be any net loss of benefits. Standard No. 210 tests the lap belt
anchorages of a voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belt as if the lap
belt were the only belt present at the seating position and by itself
would have to sustain the entire load of the occupant. However, the
proposal would require the shoulder belt anchorage to help sustain the
load. Further, lap/shoulder belts offer greater protection than lap
only belts. In the 1989 final rule requiring lap/shoulder belts at all
forward-facing outboard seating positions in passenger cars, NHTSA
estimated that rear-seat lap-only belts are 32 percent effective in
reducing the risk of death, while rear-seat lap/shoulder belts were 41
percent effective (54 FR 25275, 25276; June 14, 1989). Therefore, there
should not be any net loss of strength or benefits even if
manufacturers install less strong lap belt anchorages.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O.
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. As explained
above, this proposal could result in an annual savings of approximately
one million dollars.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The anticipated slight savings would not affect the
purchase of new vehicles by small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this
proposed rule would not have significant federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the
[[Page 24267]]
complete submission, including purportedly confidential business
information, should be submitted to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
street address given above, and seven copies from which the purportedly
confidential information has been deleted should be submitted to the
Docket Section. A request for confidentiality should be accompanied by
a cover letter setting forth the information specified in the agency's
confidential business information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR Part
571 be amended as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 would continue
to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. 571.210 would be amended by revising sections S4.2.1 and S4.2.2
to read as follows:
Sec. 571.210 Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.
* * * * *
S4.2.1 Except as provided in S4.2.5, and except for side-facing
seats, the anchorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts for
any of the following seat belt assemblies shall withstand a 5,000 pound
force when tested in accordance with S5.1 of this standard:
(a) Type 1 seat belt assembly; and
(b) Lap belt portion of either a Type 2 or automatic seat belt
assembly that is equipped with a detachable upper torso belt.
S4.2.2 Except as provided in S4.2.5, the anchorages, attachment
hardware, and attachment bolts for any of the following seat belt
assemblies shall withstand a 3,000 pound force applied to the lap belt
portion of the seat belt assembly simultaneously with a 3,000 pound
force applied to the shoulder belt portion of the seat belt assembly,
when tested in accordance with S5.2 of this standard:
(a) Type 2 and automatic seat belt assemblies that are installed to
comply with Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208); and
(b) Type 2 and automatic seat belt assemblies that are voluntarily
installed at a seating position required to have a Type 1 seat belt
assembly by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208).
* * * * *
Issued on May 8, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-12033 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
