[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32140-32143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15558]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-98-3773]
RIN 2127-AF91
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assembly
Anchorages
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition from Volvo Cars of North
America (Volvo), by amending the seat belt anchorage strength
requirements of FMVSS No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages,'' to
require the anchorages of all lap/shoulder belts to meet a 6,000 pound
strength requirement, regardless of whether a manufacturer has the
option of installing a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at that seating
position. Two different requirements existed for testing the anchorages
of lap/shoulder belts. One requirement, applicable to lap/shoulder
belts installed at locations where manufacturers did not have the
option of installing any other type of belt, called for all three
anchorages of a lap/shoulder belt to withstand a 6,000 pound strength
test. The second requirement, applicable to lap/shoulder belts
installed at locations where a manufacturer could install either a lap
belt or a lap/shoulder belt, required the anchorages of the lap
portions of a lap/shoulder belt to withstand the 5,000 pound strength
test applied to lap belts. The adoption of this new certification
requirement allows manufacturers to test all lap/shoulder belts alike,
i.e. according to the 6,000 pound strength test appropriate for lap/
shoulder belts, and no longer need also test the anchorages for the lap
belt portion to the 5,000 pound test used for belts consisting of just
a lap belt.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective June 14, 1999.
Manufacturers wishing to comply with the requirements of this final
rule may do so before the effective date commencing September 10, 1998.
Petition Date: Any petitions for reconsideration must be received
by NHTSA no later than July 27, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
and notice number of this notice and be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590.
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: Mr. John Lee, Light Duty Vehicle Division,
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NPS-11, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, telephone: (202) 366-4924, facsimile (202) 493-
2739, electronic mail jlee@nhtsa.dot.gov''.
For legal issues: Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, telephone (202) 366-5263, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail
omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under Standard No. 208, ``Occupant crash
protection,'' manufacturers have the option of installing a Type 1 seat
belt (i.e., lap belt) instead of a Type 2 seat belt assembly (i.e.,
lap/shoulder belts) at these locations:
Vehicles, including school buses, with a GVWR of more than
10,000 pounds: all seats, except passenger seats in buses;
School buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
10,000 pounds or less: the passenger seats; and
All other vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less:
all seats, except forward-facing outboard seats.
Prior to this final rule, the anchorage requirements in Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly
anchorages,'' required the lap belt anchorages for Type 2 belts
installed at these positions to meet the 5,000 pound load requirement
applicable to Type 1 belts. However, the anchorages for the shoulder
belt portion were not subject to any load requirement. These
requirements were established in a final rule published on April 30,
1990 (55 FR 17970) without any explanatory discussion in the preamble
to the final rule. Where Type 2 belts were the only configuration
allowed at a seating position, the Standard required the anchorages for
Type 2 seat 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.
The Volvo 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 seat
belts'' to two different tests.1 Pursuant to Standard No.
210, it tests the anchorages for the lap belt portion of those belts
for compliance with the anchorage requirements for a Type 1 seat belt.
In addition, for quality control purposes, it tests the anchorages of
its voluntarily installed Type 2 seat belts for compliance with the
requirements
[[Page 32141]]
for the anchorages of mandatorily installed Type 2 seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Volvo's use of the term ``voluntarily installed'' reflects
that company's interpretation that Standard No. 208 does not require
the installation of Type 2 belts at locations where Standard No. 208
allows manufacturers to meet seat belt requirements by installing
either a Type 1 or a Type 2 belt. As the minimum requirement for
those locations can be met by installing a Type 1 belt, Volvo
adheres to the view that Type 2 belts used where only a Type 1 is
required are ``voluntarily installed'' belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reduce the amount of testing, Volvo requested that the Standard
be amended to give manufacturers a choice of certifying the lap belt
anchorages of a ``voluntarily installed'' Type 2 seat belt either to
the requirements for Type 1 seat belt anchorages or to the requirements
for a Type 2 seat belt anchorage. The adoption of this request would
allow Volvo to cease separate testing of the lap belt portion of its
voluntarily installed Type 2 seat belts.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On May 14, 1996 (61 FR 24265), NHTSA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing that FMVSS 210 be amended so that all Type
2 belts are tested alike. Manufacturers that choose to install Type 2
seat belts at positions where they are optional would be required to
certify the anchorages according to the requirements for the anchorages
for mandatory Type 2 seat belts.
Comments in Response to the NPRM
Six comments were received in response to the NPRM. The commenters
included Volvo Cars of North America (Volvo), General Motors
Corporation (GM), Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS),
Volkswagen (VW), Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA), and American
Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA). Additionally, a related
letter was received from the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB). All those submitting comments concurred with the proposal.
However, General Motors (GM), Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS) and American Automotive Manufacturers Association (AAMA) had
additional comments.
Although GM agreed with the agency proposal, it suggested that the
proposed rule change might be unnecessary. GM commented that because
FMVSS 208 expressly provides the vehicle manufacturer with the option
of installing ``a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly `` at certain
designated seating positions, the Standard requires that one or the
other be provided. In GM's view, if a vehicle manufacturer decides to
provide a Type 2 seat belt assembly at the designated seating position,
that Type 2 seat belt assembly becomes the FMVSS 208 required seat belt
assembly for that designated seating position and, as such, becomes
subject to the requirements for such belt assemblies as specified prior
to this final rule.
IIHS made similar arguments. It supported proposed changes in the
NPRM, but believes that the term ``voluntarily-installed'' is
confusing. IIHS noted that Standard 208 states that either a Type 1 or
Type 2 belt must be installed at all non-outboard forward-facing seats.
In IIHS' view, nothing in Standard 208 indicates that the installation
of a Type 2 belt is a voluntary decision and that the agency should not
refer to Type 2 belts installed where they are not required as
voluntarily installed seat belts.
AAMA suggested that S4.2.2 include the phrase ``and except for
side-facing seats,'' and that the proposed changes become effective 30
days after the final rule.
In a letter dated September 20, 1996, offered in response to the
NPRM, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that
NHTSA require installation of center rear lap/shoulder belts in all
newly manufactured passenger vehicles for sale in the United States.
Analysis of Comments
The comments submitted by GM and IIHS concern the issue of whether
a Type 2 seat belt installed at a seating position for which Standard
No. 208 expressly provides the option of installing either a Type 1 or
Type 2 seat belt is a voluntarily installed belt. GM contended that if
a vehicle manufacturer decides to provide a Type 2 seat belt assembly
at such a designated seating position, it is doing so to satisfy
Standard 208 and the decision is therefore not a voluntary one. In GM's
view, such Type 2 seat belt assemblies are installed to comply with
Standard 208 and would be tested to conform to the specifications
applicable to Type 2 seat belt assemblies installed where Standard 208
requires such belts.
In contrast, Volvo's petition for rulemaking is premised on the
view that Type 2 belts installed in lieu of Type 1 belts are
``voluntarily installed.'' This view is based on NHTSA's prior
interpretation supporting the concept of ``voluntarily installed''
belts and language previously found in S4.2.1(b) specifying that the
lap belt portion of a Type 2 seat belt that is ``voluntarily installed
at a designated seating position'' must withstand a 5,000 pound force.
Although GM and IIHS differ from Volvo about whether the standard
would have required the 3,000 pound test load to be applied to the lap
belt portion of the seat belt assembly simultaneously with a 3,000
pound test load applied to the shoulder belt portion uniformly to all
Type 2 seat belt anchorages, they agree that uniformity is desirable.
The agency concurs in this view. In proposing to amend the standard,
the agency accepted Volvo's view that an amendment was necessary. Upon
considering the comments from GM and IIHS, NHTSA concedes that the
former language of the standard could support the interpretation those
commenters gave it. However, Volvo's position also has support in the
record and is in accord with earlier agency interpretations. To avoid
future uncertainty, NHTSA concludes that the better course is to amend
the standard as proposed. It accordingly amends S4.2.1. by deleting the
reference to ``voluntarily installed'' Type 2 seat belts, thereby
making the lap and shoulder anchorages for all such belts each subject
to the 3,000 pound test requirements of S4.2.2. IIHS also suggested
that S4.2.2 (b), as proposed in the NPRM, be removed on the basis that
this text was superfluous. NHTSA agrees that S4.2.2(b) is superfluous
and should be deleted.
The agency has also concluded that it is appropriate to follow
AAMA's suggestion that the phrase ``and except for side-facing seats''
be incorporated into S4.2.2. Such an amendment makes the section
consistent with the existing side-facing seat requirements of Standard
210. NHTSA does not agree, however, that the amendments incorporated in
this final rule should be effective 30 days after publication.
NHTSA recognizes that these amendments simplify testing and lessen
compliance burdens for many manufacturers. An early effective date
would therefore benefit some members of the industry. However, since
the amendment to S4.2.1 reverses an earlier NHTSA interpretation
regarding Type 2 belts and their anchorages, the agency is concerned
that some manufacturers who have relied on this prior interpretation to
locate the upper anchorages for Type 2 belts be afforded sufficient
time to implement changes to bring existing or planned vehicles into
compliance with the anchorage location requirements of S4.3.2.
The agency has consistently maintained that systems or components
installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to
meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or
systems do not impair the performance of required systems. In the case
of Type 2 belts, NHTSA has said that manufacturers are permitted to
locate the anchorage for the upper end of voluntarily installed
shoulder belts outside of the area specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No.
210, provided that the voluntarily installed anchorages and shoulder
belts do not destroy the ability of the required anchorages and lap
belts to comply with
[[Page 32142]]
the requirements of the safety standards. The effect of the amendment
made by this final rule is that anchorages for all Type 2 seat belts
will be required to meet the location requirements as well as the
strength requirements of Standard No. 210. To permit manufacturers who
need to relocate their Type 2 anchorages to do so, the agency is
providing that the rule will take effect one year from the date of its
publication.
Section 30111(d) of Chapter 329, 49 U.S.C. 30111(d) prohibits
establishment of an effective date for a seat standard less than 180
days or more than one year after the standard is prescribed. This
restriction does not apply if, for good cause shown, that a different
effective date is in the public interest.
NHTSA believes that setting the effective date one year after
promulgation will not have a negative impact on safety. The principal
effect of this rule will be to simplify testing requirements and
harmonize anchorage strength criteria for Type 2 belts. Volvo and other
manufacturers wishing to test the anchorages of Type 2 belts to the
Type 2 requirements may do so before the effective date of this rule.
It is expected that these manufacturers will do so, in order to avoid
the costs of duplicative testing.
In regard to the suggestion provided by the NTSB that NHTSA require
the installation of Type 2 seat belts at all designated seating
positions, NHTSA believes that such a requirement is beyond the scope
of this rulemaking. The instant action concerns the requirements for
seat belt anchorages rather than what types of seat belts are required
at different seating positions. NHTSA acknowledges that mandating the
installation of Type 2 belts at all seating positions may have safety
benefits. The agency has not, in the course of this rulemaking,
examined those benefits or potential risks and costs of such a
requirement. Accordingly, the agency is therefore respectfully
declining to take the actions suggested by NTSB.
Final Rule
NHTSA is making several changes to the proposal outlined in the
NPRM. The phrase ``and except for side-facing seats'' is added to
S4.2.2. As discussed above, S4.2.2(b) is being deleted in its entirety.
Effective Date
In response to the NPRM, AAMA suggested that the agency establish
an early effective date for the new anchorage requirements. As noted
above, the rule will become effective one year from the date of
publication in the Federal Register. Manufacturers wishing to comply
prior to that date may do so commencing 90 days after publication.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. 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. This final rule
will result in reduced testing costs for manufacturers who had
previously been testing Type 2 belt anchorages to two different
strength standards. The cost savings will vary depending on the test
procedure being used by the manufacturer. The agency believes that the
impact of this final rule does not warrant the preparation of a full
regulatory analysis.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) requires
each agency to evaluate the potential effects of a final rule on small
businesses. Modifications to standards for seat belt anchorages affect
motor vehicle manufacturers, few of which are small entities. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) has set size standards for determining if
a business within a specific industrial classification is a small
business. The Standard Industrial Classification code used by the SBA
for Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies (3711) defines a small
manufacturer as one having 1,000 employees or less.
I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. Very few
single stage manufacturers of motor vehicles within the United States
have 1,000 or fewer employees. Those that do are not likely to perform
testing of seat belt anchorages and would be much more likely to
contract with a larger manufacturer or a test facility to perform such
testing. Furthermore, this rule reduces test burdens for manufacturers
by eliminating any perceived need to test the anchorages of certain
Type 2 seat belts to two different strength requirements. For this
reason, NHTSA believes that this final rule will not have a significant
impact on any small business.
C. 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 final rule.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this final rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)and Unfunded Mandates Act
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined
that this final rule would not have significant federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
In issuing this final rule modifying seat belt anchorage strength
requirements, the agency notes, for the purposes of the Unfunded
Mandates Act, that it is pursuing the least cost alternative. This
rulemaking does not impose new costs but reduces compliance test costs
by eliminating potentially duplicative requirements.
F. Civil Justice Reform
This final rule will 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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as
follows:
PART 571-FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to
read as follows:
[[Page 32143]]
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. 571.210 is 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, if such seat belt assembly is equipped with a detachable
upper torso belt.
S4.2.2 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 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 installed at
a seating position required to have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt
assembly by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208).
* * * * *
Issued on June 4, 1998.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-15558 Filed 6-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
