Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19155 

1For lap belt only anchorages, the seat belt 

anchorage must withstand force as it is increased 

to 22,241 N (5,000 pounds) over thirty seconds and 

withstand that force as it is held for 10 seconds. 

2The particular pelvic body block used depends 

on the type of seat. Typically the body block in 

Continued 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Funmi Taylor of the Publications and 

Regulations Branch, Legal Processing 

Division, Associate Chief Counsel 

(Procedure and Administration) at (202) 

622–7180 (not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice 

of proposed rulemaking by crossreference to temporary regulations and a 

notice of public hearing that appeared 

in the Federal Register on Tuesday 

January 17, 2012 (77 FR 2240) 

announced that a public hearing was 

scheduled for April 3, 2012, at 10 a.m. 

in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue 

Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC. The subject of 

the public hearing is under section 861 

of the Internal Revenue Code. 

The public comment period for the 

proposed rulemaking expired on March 

13, 2012. The notice of proposed 

rulemaking by cross-reference to 

temporary regulations and a notice of 

public hearing instructed those 

interested in testifying at the public 

hearing to submit an outline of the 

topics to be addressed. As of Monday, 

March 26, 2012, no one has requested to 

speak. Therefore, the public hearing 

scheduled for April 3, 2012, is 

cancelled. 

LaNita VanDyke, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2012–7609 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

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; Incorporation by 

Reference 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes to 

amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard No. 210, ‘‘Seat belt assembly 

anchorages,’’ to specify a new force 

application device for use as a testing 

interface to transfer loads onto the seat 

belt anchorage system during 

compliance tests of anchorage strength. 

The device represents a human torso 

and pelvis. The new device comes in 

two sizes, one representative of a midsize adult male, and the other of a small 

occupant. We propose both sizes be 

used in FMVSS No. 210. We believe that 

the devices provide a consistent test 

configuration and load path to the seat 

belt assembly anchorages. We are 

proposing this amendment because the 

devices are significantly easier to use 

than the current body blocks. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 29, 2012. 

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 mention 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 

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: Ms. Deirdre Fujita, 

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. FMVSS No. 210 

II. Proposed New Force Application Device 

a. FAD1 and FAD2 

b. Positioning the FAD 

c. Drawing Package 

III. Data From Use of the FADs 

a. Consistent Positioning of the FADs on a 

Vehicle Seat 

b. Repeatability of Force Measurement 

c. Vehicle Tests 

1. FADs Do Not Appear To Affect the 

Stringency of the Test 

2. FADs Appear To Offer Advantages 

IV. Lead Time 

V. Miscellaneous Issues 

a. Metric Units 

b. Note—Testing Motorcoach Seat Belt 

Anchorages 

c. Note—Figure 3 in FMVSS No. 210 

d. Note—Side-Facing Seats Correction 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

VII. Public Participation 

I. FMVSS No. 210 

FMVSS No. 210, ‘‘Seat belt assembly 

anchorages,’’ applies to passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles 

(MPVs), 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 lap/ 

shoulder belts must withstand a 13,345 

Newton (N) (3,000 pounds (lb)) force 

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 anchorage assemblies must 

withstand the force as it is increased 

over thirty seconds, and withstand that 

force as it is held for 10 seconds.1 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19156 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Figure 2A of FMVSS No. 210 is used. The Figure 

2B body block of FMVSS No. 210 is optionally used 

for center seating positions. The FMVSS No. 222 

Figure 2 body block is only used for school buses 

with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 

pounds) or less. 

3Robbins, D. 1985. ‘‘Anthropometric 

Specifications for Mid-Size Male Dummy,’’ Volume 

2, UMTRI, DOT HS 806 716. 

4Briefly stated, S4.2.4 specifies that anchorages, 

attachment hardware, and attachment bolts shall be 

tested by simultaneously loading them if: (a) The 

DSPs are common to the same occupant seat and 

face the same direction, or (b) the DSPs are not 

common to the same occupant seat, but a DSP has 

an anchorage that is within 305 mm of an anchorage 

for one of the adjacent DSPs, provided that the 

adjacent seats face in the same direction. 5 In the 1990s, NHTSA did not prevail in an 

enforcement action brought against a manufacturer 

for an apparent noncompliance with FMVSS No. 

210. In the test, NHTSA positioned the pelvic body 

block away from the rear seat back, believing that 

positioning the body block in this manner was 

within the test parameters of the standard. The 

manufacturer 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, i.e., that it 

could be placed forward of the seat back. United 

States v. Chrysler Corporation. 158 F.3rd 1350 (DC 

Cir. 1998). 

6 ‘‘Snug’’ refers to when enough slack is removed 

from the seat belt(s) such that a 31.75 mm (11⁄4 inch) 

diameter wooden rod will not pass between the 

FAD and the belt with a maximum force of 2.22 N 

(0.5 lb-force) exerted tangent to the FAD shoulder 

or lap belt interface. 

FMVSS No. 210 and Figure 2 in FMVSS 

No. 222, ‘‘School bus passenger seating 

and crash protection’’). 

II. Proposed New Force Application 

Device 

We propose to amend FMVSS No. 210 

to reference a new ‘‘force application 

device’’ (FAD), which would replace the 

pelvic body block for all belt types and 

the upper torso body block for lap/ 

shoulder belts. 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 (see 

Figures 5 and 6 in the proposed 

regulatory text). We propose both sizes 

be incorporated into the FMVSS No. 210 

test procedure. 

a. FAD1 and FAD2 

The two different size versions of the 

FADs are called FAD1 and FAD2. We 

estimate the cost of each FAD (both the 

FAD1 and FAD2) to be approximately 

$8,000. 

The external dimensions of the FAD1 

are based on digital data 3 developed by 

the University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute 

(UMTRI) as a representation of the 50th 

percentile adult male. The FAD1, which 

weighs 55.8 kg (123 lb), replicates the 

torso and lap portions of what UMTRI 

calls the ‘‘Golden Shell’’ and reproduces 

the seat belt angles produced when a 

seat belt is fastened around a 50th 

percentile adult male. We believe that 

the FAD1 and FAD2 provide a 

consistent test configuration and load 

path to the seat belt assembly 

anchorages. A detailed description of 

the FAD can be found in a technical 

report prepared for the agency (‘‘Final 

Report: Development of a Combination 

Upper Torso and Pelvic Body Block for 

FMVSS 210 Test, Revision A,’’ May 22, 

2003, KARCO Engineering, LLC), a copy 

of which has been placed in the docket 

for this NPRM. 

NHTSA developed the specifications 

for the FAD2, the smaller version of the 

force application device, to use at 

designated seating positions (DSPs) that 

are too narrow in width to accommodate 

the FAD1, such as some rear center seats 

in passenger cars and MPVs. In addition 

to enabling the testing of the seat belt 

assembly anchorages of smaller-width 

DSPs, the FAD2 also would ensure that 

the test simulates parameters (e.g., belt 

angle and placement) that are consistent 

with a smaller person sitting in the seat. 

The table below summarizes the 

dimensions of the FAD1 and the FAD2, 

and, for comparison purposes, the 

dimensions of the Hybrid III (HIII) test 

dummies representing the 50th 

percentile adult male, 10-year-old child, 

and the 5th percentile adult female. 

FAD1 HIII 50th Male FAD2 HIII 10-yearold child 

HIII 5th 

percentile 

female 

Weight (lb/kg)* ..................................................................... 123.00/55.79 171.30/77.70 47.50/27.55 77.60/35.20 108/48.99 

Shoulder Pivot Height (in/millimeters (mm)) ........................ 18.50/470 20.2/513 12.38/314 15.55/395 17.5/445 

Shoulder Breadth (in/mm) .................................................... 17.73/450 16.90/429 11.97/304 12.40/315 14.1/358 

Hip Breadth (in/mm) ............................................................. 13.97/355 14.3/363 9.43/240 10.40/264 12.1/307 

* There is a weight difference in part because the FADs do not have arms, legs, or a head. 

As to when the agency would use the 

FAD1 versus the FAD2 to test the seat 

belt anchorages, NHTSA proposes the 

following. The agency would, in the 

first instance, attempt to fit the FAD1 in 

the DSP to test the seat belt assembly 

anchorages, using the procedure 

described in the next section below. For 

tests conducted in accordance with 

S4.2.4 of FMVSS No. 210 (simultaneous 

testing of adjacent DSP anchorages),4 if 

after the FAD1 devices are installed, but 

prior to conducting the test, there is 

contact between the FAD1s (or if there 

is contact between the FAD1s that 

prevent them from fitting side-by-side), 

an inboard FAD1 would be replaced 

with a FAD2. If there is still contact 

between the FADs, and if there is 

another inboard DSP, an additional 

inboard FAD1 would be replaced with 

a FAD2, and so on. If the contact 

continues with all inboard DSPs with 

FAD2s, the FAD1 in the non-driver side 

outboard DSP would be replaced with a 

FAD2. If there is still contact between 

the FADs, the FAD1 in the driver side 

outboard DSP would be replaced with a 

FAD2. 

Comments are requested on this 

procedure. 

b. Positioning the FAD 

The regulatory text of FMVSS No. 210 

would specify how the FADs would be 

positioned on a vehicle seat at the outset 

of the strength test.5 Generally, the seat 

back would be at the manufacturer’s 

design seat back angle, and the seat in 

its rearmost and lowest position. The 

FAD would be placed so that its 

midsagittal plane is vertical and aligned 

with the longitudinal centerline of the 

seat back. Prior to the application of 

forces described in S5 of FMVSS No. 

210, the FAD is set up such that the 

pelvis portion of the FAD rests on the 

seat and makes contact with the seat 

back. Holding the pelvis portion in 

place, the technician positions the torso 

portion of the FAD in contact with the 

seat back. The technician would place 

the lap belt over the lap portion of the 

pelvis, and if applicable, the shoulder 

belt across the FAD’s torso portion. 

Once the FAD is in place, the technician 

would remove enough slack such that 

the seat belt is snug 6 against the FAD, 

and would ensure that the seat belt is 

locked in this position. The technician 

would then attach the device used to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19157 

7A document describing the inspection criteria 

used to make this determination has been placed in 

the docket for this NPRM. 

8A Faro Arm is a multiple axis articulated 

measuring arm with six degrees of freedom. 9H-point means the mechanically hinged hip 

point of a manikin which simulates the actual pivot 

center of the human torso and thigh. 

apply the requisite load(s), and apply 

the load(s) in the manner described in 

S5 of the standard. (The May 22, 2003 

docketed test report illustrates a typical 

pull test set-up.) 

NHTSA has tentatively concluded 

that the regulatory text proposed today 

provides a clear explanation of how the 

agency will position the FADs in 

FMVSS No. 210 compliance tests and 

that following that text will result in 

consistent positioning of the FADs. 

NHTSA requests comments on whether 

and how the proposed text could be 

improved to provide clearer information 

on how the FADs would be positioned 

and how the FMVSS No. 210 test would 

be conducted. 

c. Drawing Package 

The FAD1 and the FAD2 each consist 

of component assemblies specified in 

approximately 32 drawings that we have 

docketed. We believe that the drawing 

package is sufficiently detailed to allow 

manufacturers to fabricate the FAD1 and 

FAD2. During development of this 

NPRM, we compared a FAD1 and FAD2 

manufactured by Denton ATD using the 

drawing package to a FAD1 and a FAD2 

that pre-existed the drawing package. 

NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Test 

Center dimensionally inspected the 

FADs manufactured according to the 

drawings and the preexisting FADs.7

Based upon this inspection, the agency 

determined that the devices were 

sufficiently equivalent. From this 

evaluation, we tentatively conclude that 

the drawing package is sufficient to 

allow consistent fabrication of the FAD1 

and FAD2. 

III. Data From Use of the FADs 

a. Consistent Positioning of the FADs 

on a Vehicle Seat 

Test data indicate that the FADs can 

be positioned on a vehicle seat in a 

repeatable manner. In an assessment of 

the FADs during development of the 

devices, different test technicians 

positioned the FAD1 and FAD2 three 

times in the following nine vehicles: 

The model year (MY) 2002 Buick 

LeSabre, MY 2002 Toyota MR–2, MY 

1995 Plymouth Neon, MY 1995 Toyota 

Previa, MY 2000 Chevrolet S–10, MY 

2002 Chevrolet TrailBlazer, MY 2003 

Volkswagen Jetta, MY 1996 Ford F–350 

(U-Haul), and MY 1992 Dodge Ram 350. 

The technicians were provided a written 

copy of the seating procedure and no 

additional instructions. Once each 

technician had seated a FAD in a test 

vehicle, a Faro Arm 8 was used to record 

the precise location of three 

predetermined points on the FAD 

relative to a fixed point on the test 

vehicle. 

The results from each technician were 

compared. On average, the technicians 

were able to place a FAD in a specific 

test vehicle so that the predetermined 

measuring points were within 6.35 mm 

(1⁄4 inch) of the same point, on the same 

FAD, in the same test vehicle, placed by 

the other technicians. (See ‘‘Final 

Report: Development of a Combination 

Upper Torso and Pelvic Body Block for 

FMVSS 210 Test, Revision A,’’ supra.) 

We tentatively conclude that a 6.35 mm 

(1⁄4 inch) variability in seating the FAD 

is acceptable. In comparison, FMVSS 

No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ 

at S10.4.2.1, specifies a 12.7 mm (1⁄2

inch) tolerance for the H-point.9 A 6.35 

mm (1⁄4 inch) variability in seating the 

FAD is well within the same range of 

tolerance as specified in FMVSS No. 

208 for positioning the H-point. This is 

even more compelling considering the 

technicians performing the FAD test 

were unaccustomed to the seating 

procedure, and that the results were 

based on the comparison of three points 

of the FAD surface, not just one. 

b. Repeatability of Force Measurement 

Test data indicates that in tests with 

the FADs, comparable forces would be 

measured, within specified tolerances, 

from tests of a given seat belt anchorage 

during repeated trials on the same 

vehicle body design. Our assessment is 

based on results of four tests conducted 

to assess the repeatability of the FAD1 

test device. The test configuration was 

set up in a generic configuration to 

minimize variability. Anchorage load 

cells were mounted to a rigid test rig, 

the vehicle seat was replaced with a 

rigid seat, and the seat belt webbing was 

replaced with high strength webbing. 

In each test, the FAD1 was positioned, 

belted, and pulled per the proposed 

FMVSS No. 210 test procedure. A 

statistical analysis was performed on 

both the peak force values as well as 

time-based metrics. The coefficient of 

variance (CV) was used to assess the 

variability of the peak values for each 

data channel in order to determine the 

repeatability of the test results and to 

rate the channels based on an 

established CV acceptance criteria. The 

analysis of these tests can be found in 

a NHTSA Technical Report, 

‘‘Repeatability Analysis of the Force 

Applied to Safety Belt Anchors Using 

the Force Application Device (May 

2009),’’ a copy of which is in the docket 

for this NPRM. 

The results indicated that all data 

channels, except two, were rated 

‘‘excellent.’’ Of the two, one data 

channel was rated ‘‘good’’ and another 

was rated ‘‘acceptable.’’ To model 

statistically the output of the entire 

system over different tests conducted at 

different points in time, a general linear 

model (GLM) and a mixed model were 

used. The GLM produced a time-based 

p-value of 0.98, which means that there 

was no statistically significant 

difference over tests 1 through 4 for the 

four repeated measures while 

considering all the data channels. 

Similarly, there was no statistically 

significant interaction between the test 

number and the data channels. This is 

shown with a p-value of 0.95. These 

results showed that the repeated force 

plots of the various channels had 

similar trends. The mixed model results 

were similar to the GLM and similarly 

showed that the four tests were 

repeatable and consistent over time. 

Overall, the test procedure using the 

FAD1 was demonstrated to be 

repeatable, with fourteen force channels 

meeting the ‘‘excellent’’ criteria, one 

channel meeting the ‘‘good’’ criteria and 

one channel meeting the ‘‘acceptable’’ 

criteria. The one ‘‘acceptable’’ data 

channel (retractor Y-axis) had a large 

measurement error relative to the other 

channels as seen by the ‘‘acceptable’’ 

coefficient of variation. However, the 

scale of the mean value, around 889.64 

N (200 pounds), is relatively small 

compared to the 13,345 N (3,000 pound) 

belt load, thus the greater measurement 

error has a minor effect on the overall 

test results. Both the GLM and the 

mixed model method showed that there 

are no statistically significant 

correlations between the test number 

and the data channel and that the 

repeated force values of various 

channels share similar trends. 

The agency has no reason to believe 

that similar results would not be 

achieved with the FAD2. 

c. Vehicle Tests 

1. FADs Do Not Appear To Affect the 

Stringency of the Test 

We believe that using the FADs would 

not affect a vehicle’s performance under 

FMVSS No. 210. That is, use of the 

FADs would not affect the stringency of 

the strength test, and would not affect 

the likelihood of a vehicle’s meeting or 

not meeting the standard’s strength 

requirements. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19158 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

10S5 of the standard specifies that, when testing 

the anchorage, the anchorage is connected to 

material whose breaking strength is equal to or 

greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for 

the seat assembly installed as original equipment at 

that seating position. 

11See Karco Engineering, LLC ‘‘Final Report: 

Development of a Combination Upper Torso and 

Pelvic Body Block for FMVSS 210 Test, Revision 

A,’’ supra, at page 28. 

12Assuming the use of one technician at a pay 

rate of $75 per hour and a savings of 5 minutes per 

seat installation, we estimate that using the FADs 

to test a vehicle may result in a total labor cost 

savings of $93.75 (or $18.75 per seating position), 

as compared to tests of the vehicle using the current 

body blocks. 

NHTSA tested nine vehicles with the 

FAD1, FAD2, and current FMVSS No. 

210 body blocks in adjacent seating 

positions installed in the vehicles 

shown in Table 2 below. The FAD1 was 

in the left seat, the FAD2 was in the 

center seat, and the current upper torso 

and pelvic body blocks were on the 

right seat. (Each of the nine indicant 

Test Reports are in the docket for this 

NPRM.) Vehicles that met FMVSS No. 

210’s strength requirements using the 

current body blocks also met those 

strength requirements using the FADs. 

TABLE 2—NINE INDICANT TESTS

Vehicle year, make, and model 

FMVSS No. 210 test 

results 

w/Current 

body 

blocks 

w/FAD1 

and FAD2 

2005 VW Passat ..................................................................................................................................................................... Pass ....... Pass. 

2005 Acura RL ........................................................................................................................................................................ Pass ....... Pass. 

2005 Toyota Avalon ................................................................................................................................................................ Pass ....... Pass. 

2005 Buick Lacrosse ............................................................................................................................................................... Pass ....... Pass. 

2005 Chrysler 300 ................................................................................................................................................................... Pass ....... Pass. 

2005 Chevy Express 11 Passenger Van ................................................................................................................................ Pass ....... Pass. 

2005 Chrysler Town and Country Mini Van with Stow N’ Go seating ................................................................................... Pass ....... Pass. 

2005 Ford F–150 Super Crew Cab Pick-up Truck ................................................................................................................. Pass ....... Pass. 

2005 Chevy Aveo .................................................................................................................................................................... Pass ....... Pass. 

2. FADs Appear To Offer Advantages 

During the vehicle test program, it 

appeared that there are several 

advantages to testing with the FADs as 

compared to testing with the current 

body blocks, in addition to the factor, 

discussed above, that the FADs are more 

representative of a human form than the 

upper torso and pelvic body blocks. 

As noted in the docketed test reports, 

an advantage to the FAD geometry is 

that it does not put an unrealistic 

bending force on the belt buckle, unlike 

the pelvic body block. Also, the FADs 

lack the sharp edges of the pelvic body 

block, which reduces the likelihood of 

seat belt buckle breakage during testing. 

(See docketed test reports.) Buckle 

breakage occurs sometimes with the 

pelvic body block, which results in 

replacing the seat belt with steel cable, 

as allowed by the standard.10

We have also noted that, due to the 

range of motion associated with the 

current body blocks (which can move 

independently of each other), there can 

be excessive spooling out of seat belt 

webbing during an FMVSS No. 210 test, 

to the point where the hydraulic rams 

can reach their full stroke during a test 

before a requisite force level is reached. 

When the hydraulic rams reach their 

full stroke before the test is completed, 

the test must be stopped so the rams can 

be re-hooked for the test to continue. 

The proposed FADs provide a more 

realistic range of motion because they 

are shaped like a human, with the upper 

torso portion hinged to the pelvic 

portion. The two parts cannot move as 

independently of each other as can the 

current FMVSS No. 210 body blocks. 

The FADs do not result in as much seat 

belt spool-out as seen with the current 

body blocks and thereby eliminate the 

problem of bottoming-out the hydraulic 

cylinders during the test. 

Another noteworthy advantage of the 

proposed FADs over the current FMVSS 

No. 210 body blocks is that the FADs 

necessitate significantly less effort and 

time to install in a test vehicle. A FAD 

can be installed in a vehicle seat in less 

than 5 minutes, while the current body 

blocks typically necessitate over 10 

minutes.11 This estimated reduction in 

time results from the ease-of-use of the 

FADs; they required only one attempt 

for installation in our tests. In contrast, 

for the current body blocks, typically 

numerous attempts at positioning are 

necessary because the upper torso block 

often falls out of position during set-up 

and needs to be re-installed. A test of a 

common seat with three designated 

seating positions can be as much as 20 

minutes shorter when using the FADs 

versus when using the current body 

blocks, which can be associated with 

decreased labor costs, and ultimately, a 

decrease in the total cost of the test. 

Furthermore, the current body blocks 

need two technicians for installation, 

while the FADs can be installed by one 

technician.12

For the reasons provided above, we 

propose to amend FMVSS No. 210 to 

incorporate the FAD1 and FAD2 into 

the standard in place of the upper torso 

and pelvic body blocks. 

IV. Lead Time 

The proposed effective date (the date 

that the text of FMVSS No. 210 would 

be revised in the Code of Federal 

Regulations) is 180 days after date of 

publication of the final rule. 

The proposed compliance date for 

testing with the FADs would be three 

years from the date of publication of the 

final rule. The agency would use the 

FADs to test vehicles manufactured on 

or after the first September 1st that is 

three years from the date of publication 

of the final rule. We have tentatively 

determined that three years is sufficient 

time for manufacturers to procure the 

FADs and test their vehicles’ seat belt 

anchorages with the FADs. Optional 

early compliance would be permitted. 

Comment is sought on the proposed 

lead time. 

V. Miscellaneous Issues 

a. Metric Units 

There are English and metric units 

used in FMVSS No. 210. At present, 

force measurements in the introductory 

sentence of S4.2.1 and in the 

introductory sentence of S4.2.2 are in 

pounds (5,000 pounds in S4.2.1 and 

3,000 pounds in S4.2.2). The preferred 

method of measurement in the FMVSSs 

is the metric system. To reflect the 

preference for the metric system and to 

promote consistency throughout FMVSS 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19159 

13 73 FR 58887, 58888; definition of ‘‘designated 

seating position.’’ 

14 Given that the materials that compose the new 

FADs are polyurethane castings with aluminum 

structural components and the peripheral 

attachments are aluminum and steel, we do not 

expect them to experience any appreciable wear as 

a result of the FMVSS No. 210 testing and, 

therefore, we believe that the FADs will have a long 

service life. 

No. 210, these measurements specified 

in pounds are proposed to be specified 

in Newtons (N). Therefore, for S4.2.1, 

we propose to specify the force as 

‘‘22,241 N (5,000 pounds)’’ and for 

S4.2.2, we propose to specify the force 

as ‘‘13,345 N (3,000 pounds).’’ 

b. Note—Testing Motorcoach Seat Belt 

Anchorages 

In 2010, NHTSA published an NPRM 

that, among other matters, proposed to 

require passenger seat belts on 

motorcoaches (75 FR 50958; August 18, 

2010; Docket NHTSA–2010–0112). 

Today’s NPRM would amend FMVSS 

No. 210 as applied to all vehicles 

subject to the standard, including 

motorcoaches. If the proposal is 

adopted, the FAD1 and FAD2 would be 

used instead of the current upper torso 

and pelvic body blocks to test seat belt 

anchorages on motorcoaches 

manufactured on or after the 

compliance date of the standard. 

c. Note—Figure 3 in FMVSS No. 210 

For clarification purposes, we would 

like to point out that, even if we adopt 

the FADs in a final rule, there would 

still be a need for the upper torso block 

shown in Figure 3 of FMVSS No. 210. 

The upper torso body block depicted in 

Figure 3 is currently referenced in 

S5.1.6 of FMVSS No. 222 for use in 

testing school bus seats to that 

standard’s quasi-static test 

requirements. The quasi-static test 

requirements help ensure that seat backs 

incorporating lap/shoulder belts are 

strong enough to withstand the forward 

pull of the torso belts in a crash and the 

forces imposed on the seat from 

unbelted passengers to the rear of the 

belted occupants. NHTSA would 

continue to use the (Figure 3) torso body 

block in FMVSS No. 222’s quasi-static 

test. (If the FADs are adopted, the school 

bus seat belt anchorages would be tested 

under FMVSS No. 210 with the FADs.) 

d. Note—Side-Facing Seats Correction 

The regulatory text in this NPRM sets 

forth S4.2 without the clause ‘‘except for 

side-facing seats,’’ which appears 

several times in current S4.2. These 

clauses were made obsolete by an 

October 8, 2008 final rule 13 which 

announced our decision to eliminate the 

exclusion of side-facing seats (and thus 

apply S4.2’s strength requirements to 

side-facing seats) but which failed to 

amend S4.2 to reflect this change. A 

correcting amendment removing the 

clauses from S4.2 will be issued by the 

agency. In the meantime, today’s 

document shows S4.2 in corrected form. 

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. 

We estimate the cost of each FAD, 

both the FAD1 and FAD2, to be 

approximately $8,000 each. Assuming a 

vehicle manufacturer or testing facility 

purchases a set of two FAD1s and three 

FAD2s, the principal cost associated 

with this NPRM is the one-time 14

purchase cost of the set, totaling 

$40,000. As discussed above, the FADs 

require significantly less effort, time and 

personnel to install in the test vehicle. 

Thus, we believe there would be 

associated cost savings which could offset the purchase cost of the FADs. 

The FAD2 is smaller than the FAD1 

and would enable NHTSA to test belt 

anchorages at DSPs that do not fit the 

latter device. However, additional safety 

benefits accruing beyond those already 

attributable to FMVSS No. 210 cannot 

be quantified. 

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 this proposed rule, if 

made final, would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small 

organizations and small governmental 

units would not be significantly affected 

since the potential cost impacts 

associated with this action would not 

significantly affect the price of new 

motor vehicles. 

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. 

The majority of motor vehicle 

manufacturers would not qualify as a 

small business. There are a number of 

vehicle manufacturers that are small 

businesses. We anticipate that these 

small businesses will not directly incur 

the costs of purchasing the FADs to be 

used in FMVSS No. 210. However, if 

these small businesses perform their 

own FMVSS No. 210 testing or purchase 

testing services for FMVSS No. 210 

compliance, they will benefit from the 

easier-to-use FADs and the lower labor 

costs based on the ease of using the 

FADs, compared to the existing pelvic 

body blocks. For these reasons, if this 

proposed rule is made final, NHTSA 

does not anticipate a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small businesses. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s 

proposed rule pursuant to Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rulemaking would not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19160 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 Order 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 (e.g., the language and 

structure of the regulatory text) 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 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)(Public Law 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). 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 standard 

(TR 1417–1974) and an SAE standard 

(J384, Rev. JUN94) that have testing 

recommendations for seat belt 

anchorages. Both standards recommend 

the use of body blocks, similar to those 

currently specified in FMVSS No. 210, 

for applying the required test loads. As 

noted in the preamble, there are 

advantages to the proposed FADs over 

the current FMVSS No. 210 body 

blocks, including that the FADs require 

significantly less effort and time to 

install in a test vehicle. Accordingly, we 

have decided to propose using the FADs 

in FMVSS No. 210, rather than the body 

blocks used in the ISO and SAE 

standards. 

Consistent with the Act’s goal of 

eliminating the agency’s cost of 

developing its own standards, NHTSA 

has based the external dimensions of the 

FAD1 on the ‘‘Golden Shell’’ digital data 

developed by UMTRI as a 

representation of the 50th percentile 

male. By so doing, the agency is saving 

resources by making use of pertinent 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19161 

technical information that is already 

available. 

I. Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. 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 rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t 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? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please write to us with your 

views. 

VII. 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. 

Please submit two copies of your 

comments, including the attachments, 

to the Docket at the address given above 

under ADDRESSES. 

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 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. 

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 that 

Docket Management receives before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above under 

DATES. To the extent possible, we will 

also consider comments that Docket 

Management receives after that date. If 

Docket Management 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. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

by Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. The 

hours of the Docket 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. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles, and Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 

571 as set forth below. 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

1. The authority citation for part 571 

of title 49 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Section 571.5 by adding paragraph 

(j)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(5) ‘‘Drawing Package for the Force 

Application Device (FAD) FAD1 and 

FAD2,’’ June 6, 2006, into § 571.210. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 571.210 is amended by: 

adding to S3, in alphabetical order, the 

definitions of ‘‘actuator,’’ ‘‘bridged pull 

yoke,’’ ‘‘FAD1,’’ ‘‘FAD2,’’ ‘‘longitudinal 

centerline,’’ and ‘‘seat centerline’’; by 

revising S4.2.1 and S4.2.2; by adding 

S5.3, S5.4 and S7, and by adding 

Figures 5 and 6, to read as follows: 

§ 571.210 Standard No. 210, Seat belt 

assembly anchorages. 

* * * * * 

S3. Definitions. 

Actuator means the device used to 

apply the load in performing testing 

according to the procedures described 

in S5 and S7 of this standard. 

Bridged pull yoke means the yoke that 

bridges the torso and pelvis on the 

FAD1 or FAD2. 

FAD1 means a force application 

device specified in drawings NHTSA– 

210–12J–A, ‘‘Drawing Package for the 

Force Application Device (FAD) FAD1 

and FAD2,’’ June 6, 2006 (incorporated 

by reference; see § 571.5). (FAD1 is 

depicted in Figure 5 (figure provided for 

illustration purposes).) 

FAD2 means a force application 

device that is smaller than FAD1, 

specified in drawings NHTSA–210–12J– 

B, ‘‘Drawing Package for the Force 

Application Device (FAD) FAD1 and 

FAD2,’’ June 6, 2006 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 571.5). (FAD2 is 

depicted in Figure 6 (figure provided for 

illustration purposes).) 

Longitudinal centerline of a forward 

and rear-facing seat refers to the line 

formed by the intersection of the seating 

surface and the vertical plane that 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19162 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

passes through the ‘‘seating reference 

point’’ (as defined at 49 CFR 571.3) and 

is parallel to the longitudinal centerline 

of the vehicle. For a side-facing seat, 

longitudinal centerline refers to the 

intersection of the seating surface and 

the vertical plane that passes through 

the seating reference point and is 

parallel to the transverse centerline of 

the vehicle. 

* * * * * 

Seat centerline refers to the line 

formed by the intersection of the seating 

surface and the vertical plane that 

passes through the ‘‘seating reference 

point’’ (as defined at 49 CFR 571.3) and 

is parallel to the direction that the seat 

faces. 

* * * * * 

S4.2 Strength. 

S4.2.1(a) For vehicles manufactured 

before [date inserted would be the first 

September 1st that is three years from 

the date of publication of a final rule], 

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 

22,241 N (5,000 pound) force when 

tested in accordance with S5.1 of this 

standard: 

(1) Type 1 seat belt assembly; and 

(2) 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. 

(b) For vehicles manufactured on or 

after [date inserted would be the first 

September 1st that is three years from 

the date of publication of a final rule], 

except as provided in S4.2.5, the 

anchorages, attachment hardware, and 

attachment bolts for any of the following 

seat belts assemblies shall withstand a 

22,241 N (5,000 pound) force when 

tested in accordance with S5.3 of this 

standard: 

(1) Type 1 seat belt assembly; and 

(2) 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(a) For vehicles manufactured 

before [date inserted would be the first 

September 1st that is three years from 

the date of publication of a final rule], 

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 

13,345 N (3,000 pound) force applied to 

the lap belt portion of the seat belt 

assembly simultaneously with a 13,345 

N (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: 

(1) Type 2 and automatic seat belt 

assemblies that are installed to comply 

with Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 

571.208); and 

(2) 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). 

(b) For vehicles manufactured on or 

after [date inserted would be the first 

September 1st that is three years from 

the date of publication of a final rule], 

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 

13,345 N (3,000 pound) force applied to 

the lap belt portion of the seat belt 

assembly simultaneously with a 13,345 

N (3,000 pound) force applied to the 

shoulder belt portion of the seat belt 

assembly, when tested in accordance 

with S5.4 of this standard: 

(1) Type 2 and automatic seat belt 

assemblies that are installed to comply 

with Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 

571.208); and 

(2) 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). 

* * * * * 

S5.3 Testing seating positions with 

Type 1 seat belt assemblies. 

(a) Position a FAD1 as specified in S7. 

When testing in accordance with S4.2.4, 

if after the FAD1 devices are installed, 

but prior to conducting the test, there is 

contact between the FAD1s, or if FAD1s 

cannot be positioned side-by-side due to 

contact, replace an inboard FAD1 with 

a FAD2. If contact remains and another 

inboard designated seating position 

exists, replace an additional inboard 

FAD1 with a FAD2. If contact remains 

and no other inboard designated seating 

position exists, replace the non-driver 

side outboard FAD1 with a FAD2. If 

there is still contact, replace the driver 

side outboard FAD1 with a FAD2. 

(b) After positioning the FAD1 or 

FAD2, as appropriate, in accordance 

with S7, apply a force of 22,241 N to the 

bridged pull yoke on the FAD1 or to the 

bridged pull yoke on the FAD2, in the 

direction in which the seat faces, in a 

vertical plane that passes through the 

‘‘seating reference point’’ (as defined in 

49 CFR 571.3) and that is parallel to the 

longitudinal centerline of the vehicle for 

forward- and rear-facing seats, or that is 

perpendicular to the longitudinal 

centerline of the vehicle for side-facing 

seats, with an initial force application 

angle of 10 +/¥ 5 degrees above the 

horizontal plane and +/¥ 5 degrees 

from the vertical plane. Apply the force 

at the onset rate of not more than 

222,411 N per second. Attain the 22,241 

N force within 30 seconds and maintain 

it for 10 seconds. 

S5.4 Testing seats with Type 2 or 

Type 2A seat belt assemblies. 

(a) Position a FAD1 as specified in S7. 

When testing in accordance with S4.2.4, 

if after the FAD1 devices are installed, 

but prior to conducting the test, there is 

contact between the FAD1s, or if FAD1s 

cannot be positioned side-by-side due to 

contact, replace an inboard FAD1 with 

a FAD2. If contact remains and another 

inboard designated seating position 

exists, replace an additional inboard 

FAD1 with a FAD2. If contact remains 

and no other inboard designated seating 

position exists, replace the non-driver 

side outboard FAD1 with a FAD2. If 

there is still contact, replace the driver 

side outboard FAD1 with a FAD2. 

(b) After positioning the FAD1 or 

FAD2, as appropriate, in accordance 

with S7, apply forces of 13,345 N 

simultaneously to the yoke attached to 

the torso of the FAD1 or FAD2 and to 

the eyelet attached to the pelvis of the 

FAD1 or FAD2, in the direction in 

which the seat faces, in a vertical plane 

that passes through the ‘‘seating 

reference point’’ (as defined in 49 CFR 

571.3), and that is parallel to the 

longitudinal centerline of the vehicle for 

forward- and rear-facing seats, or that is 

perpendicular to the longitudinal 

centerline of the vehicle for side-facing 

seats, with an initial force application 

angle of 10+/¥ 5 degrees above the 

horizontal plane and +/¥ 5 degrees 

from the vertical plane. Apply the forces 

at the onset rate of not more than 

133,447 N per second. Attain the 13,345 

N force within 30 seconds of the initial 

application of force and maintain it for 

10 seconds. 

* * * * * 

S7. Force Application Device (FAD)1 

and FAD2 Positioning Procedure. 

(a) If adjustable, place the seat in its 

rearmost position and, if separately 

adjustable in the vertical direction, at its 

lowest position. 

(b) If adjustable, place the seat back at 

the manufacturer’s design seat back 

angle, as measured by SAE J826 (July 

1995) (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 571.5). 

(c) Identify and mark the longitudinal 

centerline for each designated seating 

position. 

(d) Place the FAD1 or FAD2, as 

appropriate, on the seat such that the 

midsagittal plane of the FAD1 or FAD2 

is vertical and within ± 10 mm of the 

seat centerline, with the torso in contact 

with the seat back. 

(e) While maintaining the alignment 

with the longitudinal centerline as 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19163 

described in S7.(d), move the pelvis 

portion of the FAD1 or FAD2 toward the 

seat back until it contacts the seat back. 

(f) If the torso is not in contact with 

the seat back, rotate it against the seat 

back while holding the pelvis in place 

until the back of the torso is in contact 

with the seat back. 

(g) Apply a horizontal force of 180 ± 

5 N to the yoke attached to the torso of 

the FAD1 or FAD2 towards the seat 

back. While performing this step, ensure 

that the pelvis portion of the FAD1 or 

FAD2 remains in contact with the seat 

and seat back. 

(h) Buckle and position the seat belt 

so that the lap belt secures the pelvis 

portion of the FAD1 or FAD2 and the 

shoulder strap secures the torso portion 

of the FAD1 or FAD2. 

(i) Remove enough slack such that a 

31.75 mm (11⁄4 inch) diameter wooden 

rod will not pass between the FAD1 or 

FAD2 and the lap and shoulder belt 

with a maximum force of 2.22 N (0.5 lbforce) exerted tangent to the FAD1 or 

FAD2 shoulder or lap belt interface and 

ensure that the seat belt is locked in this 

position. 

(j) If testing a Type 2 or Type 2A seat 

belt assembly, attach one actuator to the 

yoke attached to the torso of the FAD1 

and one to the eyelet attached to the 

pelvis of the FAD1, or to the torso of the 

FAD2 and one to the eyelet attached to 

the pelvis of the FAD2. If testing a Type 

1 seat belt assembly, attach the actuator 

to the bridged pull yoke of the FAD 1 

or to the bridged pull yoke of the FAD2. 

* * * * * 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP30MR12.001</GPH>
19164 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: Issued on: March 23, 2012. 

Christopher J. Bonanti, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7623 Filed 3–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 600 and 635 

RIN 0648–XB121 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory 

Species Fishery Management Plan; 

Amendment 4 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearings. 

SUMMARY: On March 16, 2012, NMFS 

published a proposed rule for a fishery 

management plan (FMP) amendment 

modifying the regulations governing the 

Federal small-scale HMS fisheries in the 

U.S. Caribbean, and announced that 

public hearings would be scheduled in 

a future notice. In this notice, NMFS is 

announcing public hearings in St. Croix, 

United States Virgin Islands (USVI) St. 

Thomas, USVI, San Juan, Puerto Rico 

(PR), Ponce, PR, and Mayaguez, PR, in 

order to provide greater opportunity for 

public comment on the proposed rule. 

Public comments on the proposed rule 

must be received on or before June 14, 

2012. 

DATES: Public hearings for Amendment 

4 to the 2006 Consolidated Highly 

Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) will be held 

from April through May 2012. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting 

dates, times, and locations. 

ADDRESSES: As published on March 16, 

2012 (77 FR 15701), written comments 

on this action may be submitted, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2012–0053, 

by any one of the following methods: 

• Electronic submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 

first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon, 

then enter NOAA–NMFS–2012–0053 in 

the keyword search. Locate the 

document you wish to comment on 

from the resulting list and click on the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right 

of that line. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Margo Schulze-Haugen, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

• Fax: 301–713–1917; Attn: Margo 

Schulze-Haugen. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are part of the public record and 

generally will be posted to portal 

http://www.regulations.gov without 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP30MR12.002</GPH>