Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules 24265

these cases enabled NHTSA to estimate

the TTI(d) and pelvic acceleration

values that would have been obtained

for the vehicles had they been tested

with the barrier adopted by the final

rule. The analysis indicates that,

contrary to Toyota’s assertion about

widespread compliance of vehicles with

SgRP are 700 mm or greater, three of the

seven vehicles (‘93 Plymouth Voyager,

‘89 Ford Ranger XLT, ‘89 Suzuki

Sidekick) may require modifications to

ensure compliance with the TTI(d) and

pelvic g limits.

NHTSA also does not agree with

Toyota’s assertion that vehicles whose

SgRP point is higher than 700 mm

would necessarily pass Standard 214

due to the position of the SID’s lower rib

relative to the MDB in the crash test.

The lower rib acceleration is not the

only response used to determine the

compliance of the vehicle. Accelerations

of the upper spine, upper rib and pelvis

also play an important role in

determining compliance. Toyota did not

address the effect that SgRP height

might have on responses of those

components. Further, the relative height

between the MDB and the SgRP of the

target vehicle is one of many factors that

affect the vehicle performance during a

side impact crash test. The vehicle

weight, clearance between the side

interior and the SID, side structure and/

or padding properties are all important

factors that could affect whether small

LTVs, in particular, pass the

performance criteria. Toyota did not

address those factors either.

For the reasons discussed above,

NHTSA denies Toyota’s petition for

reconsideration.

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

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: May 8, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–12034 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

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
24266 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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 selfaddressed, 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:

§ 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

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 16

Review of Injurious Wildlife

Regulations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of review of regulations.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

is reviewing 50 CFR Part 16 to

determine to what extent it should be

reinvented. 50 CFR Part 16 addresses

the importation or shipment of injurious

wildlife. Applicable legislation will be

reviewed, the process for identifying

and listing injurious wildlife will be

examined, and import restrictions will

be evaluated.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

or sent by fax to the Chief, Division of

Fish and Wildlife Management

Assistance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Mail Stop

840 ARLSQ, Washington, D.C. 20240, or

FAX (703) 358–2044.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Mangin, Division of Fish and

Wildlife Management Assistance at

(703) 358–1718.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 50 CFR

Part 16 implements provisions of the

Lacey Act of 1900 (18 U.S.C. 42). The

Lacey Act restricts importation of

mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and

amphibians that are deemed injurious to

humans, agriculture, horticulture,

forestry, wildlife, or wildlife resources

of the United States. Interest has

increased in preventing the introduction

of harmful nonindigenous species. As

50 CFR is reinvented, alternatives to the

current approach for implementing the

Lacey Act will be considered. Specific

comments from other Federal agencies,

States, and the private sector are

requested.

Dated: May 6, 1996.

Bruce Blanchard,

Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

[FR Doc. 96–11972 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 641

[I.D. 050696A]

Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of

Mexico; Amendment 13

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of an

amendment to a fishery management

plan; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council (Council) has submitted

Amendment 13 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Reef Fish

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP)

for review, approval, and

implementation by NMFS. Written

comments are requested from the

public.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before July 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed

to the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS,

9721 Executive Center Drive N., St.

Petersburg, FL 33702.

Requests for copies of Amendment 13,

which includes an environmental

assessment and a regulatory impact

review, should be sent to the Gulf of