[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24265-24267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12033]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 96-46; Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AF91


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assembly 
Anchorages

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a petition from Volvo, this notice proposes to 
require manufacturers to certify the anchorages of a voluntarily 
installed Type 2 safety belt (lap/shoulder belt) to the anchorage 
requirements for a mandatorily installed Type 2 safety belt. Currently, 
if only a Type 1 safety belt (lap belt) is required for a particular 
seating position, a manufacturer must certify the anchorage(s) for the 
belt(s) it installs at that position to the anchorage requirements for 
a Type 1 belt, even if the manufacturer installs a Type 2 safety belt 
at that location.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590:
    For non-legal issues: Clarke B. Harper, Office of Crashworthiness 
Standards, NPS-11, telephone (202) 366-2264, facsimile (202) 366-4329, 
electronic mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87e7e7e4efe6f5f7e2f5c7e9eff3f4e6a9e3e8f3a9e0e8f1">``<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="05666d6477756077456b6d7176642b616a712b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>''.
    For legal issues: Mary Versailles, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
NCC-20, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic 
mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5636363b20332425373f3a3a332516383e2225377832392278313920">``<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c2afb4a7b0b1a3abaeaea7b182acaab6b1a3eca6adb6eca5adb4">[email protected]</span></a>''.

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:
    <bullet> The passenger seats in school buses with a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less;
    <bullet> All seats in vehicles, except passenger seats in buses, 
including school buses, with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds; and,
    <bullet> All seats, except forward-facing outboard seats, in all 
other vehicles.

Volvo's Petition

    On May 18, 1995, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. (Volvo) 
petitioned NHTSA to amend Standard No. 210. Volvo stated that it 
subjects the anchorages of its voluntarily installed Type 2 safety 
belts to two different tests. Pursuant to Standard No. 210, it tests 
the anchorages of the lap belt portion of those belts for compliance 
with the anchorage requirements for a Type 1 safety belt. In addition, 
for quality control purposes, it tests the anchorages of its 
voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belts for compliance with the 
requirements for the anchorages of mandatorily installed Type 2 safety 
belts. To reduce the amount of testing, Volvo requests that the 
Standard be amended to give manufacturers a choice of certifying the 
anchorages of a voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belt either to the 
requirements for a Type 1 safety belt anchorage or to the requirements 
for a Type 2 safety belt anchorage. The adoption of its request would 
allow Volvo to cease the separate testing of the lap belt portion of 
its voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belts.

Agency Proposal

    While Volvo asked NHTSA to allow manufacturers an option, NHTSA is 
proposing to require manufacturers that voluntarily install an integral 
Type 2 safety belt to certify the anchorages of that belt to the 
requirements for Type 2 safety belt anchorages.
    First, there does not appear to be a reason for testing non-
dynamically tested integral Type 2 safety belt anchorages differently 
based on whether the installation is mandatory or voluntary.
    Second, the load applied by an occupant to the lap belt portion of 
a Type 2 safety belt would be lower than the load applied by the same 
occupant to a Type 1 safety belt, since part of the occupant's load 
would be borne by the shoulder belt. Thus, if the load requirements for 
the lap belt anchorages of a mandatory Type 2 safety belt are 
appropriate to meet the need for motor vehicle safety, it appears that 
the current requirements for the lap belt anchorages of a voluntarily 
installed Type 2 safety belt are excessive.
    Finally, in the past, NHTSA has experienced difficulties in 
enforcing standards that give manufacturers the option of complying 
with any one of a set of alternative requirements. Generally, NHTSA 
will ask a manufacturer to specify which of the alternatives the agency 
should apply in a compliance test. In some instances when agency 
testing indicates that a

[[Page 24266]]

vehicle has an apparent non-compliance with the alternative specified 
by the manufacturer, the manufacturer has argued that the vehicle 
should nevertheless be regarded as being in compliance since it would 
comply with another alternative. NHTSA has then had to incur the 
expense of a second compliance test to determine whether it should 
continue with enforcement proceedings. This proposal would prevent such 
an enforcement problem with respect to anchorages for voluntarily 
installed Type 2 safety belts.

International Harmonization

    This proposal would harmonize this aspect of Standard No. 210 with 
the counterpart regulation of the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE 
R14, ``Safety-Belt Anchorages''). ECE14 specifies two options for seats 
equipped with lap and shoulder belt anchorages. The first option 
consists of two tests which apparently address the possibility that 
while such a seat might be initially equipped with only a Type 1 belt, 
it might at some later point be equipped with a Type 2 safety belt. 
Test 1 simultaneously subjects the anchorages for the lap and shoulder 
belt portions to loads similar to the 3,000 pound loads in Standard No. 
210. Test 2 subjects the anchorages for the lap belt portion to a load 
similar to the 5,000 pound load in Standard No. 210. The second option 
consists of only the first of these tests. If a Type 2 safety belt is 
initially installed at the seating position, ECE R14 specifies 
compliance with the second option. Under those circumstances, NHTSA's 
proposal specifies essentially the same test.

Cost Savings and Safety Impacts

    The adoption of this proposal could result in minor reductions in 
manufacturing costs and compliance costs. If a manufacturer voluntarily 
installed a Type 2 safety belt, it might decide to install lap belt 
anchorages capable of withstanding a 3,000 pound load, but not the 
5,000 pound load currently required. NHTSA believes that the cost 
savings from such a design change would be less than $1 per vehicle. In 
addition, manufacturers which currently certify the anchorages of 
voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belts to the requirements of 
Standard No. 210 for Type 1 safety belts and also choose to test those 
anchorages to the requirements for Type 2 anchorages would save 
approximately $1,400 per vehicle model as a result of not having to 
conduct a test to certify to the Type 1 anchorage requirements. For 
Volvo, this could result in a total annual cost savings from both 
design and test changes of approximately $100,000.
    Approximately 90 percent of all trucks with a GVWR of more than 
10,000 pounds have Type 2 safety belts installed at the front outboard 
seats, even though the minimum requirement is for a Type 1 safety belt. 
For this vehicle population, the annual cost savings from design 
changes could be approximately $770,000. This figure does not include 
the $1,400 for each certification test. The number of voluntarily-
installed lap/shoulder belts is increasing as other manufacturers are 
beginning to install lap/shoulder safety belts at seating positions 
that are only required to have a lap belt.
    While manufacturers might be able to install less strong lap belt 
anchorages under the proposed change, NHTSA does not believe there will 
be any net loss of benefits. Standard No. 210 tests the lap belt 
anchorages of a voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belt as if the lap 
belt were the only belt present at the seating position and by itself 
would have to sustain the entire load of the occupant. However, the 
proposal would require the shoulder belt anchorage to help sustain the 
load. Further, lap/shoulder belts offer greater protection than lap 
only belts. In the 1989 final rule requiring lap/shoulder belts at all 
forward-facing outboard seating positions in passenger cars, NHTSA 
estimated that rear-seat lap-only belts are 32 percent effective in 
reducing the risk of death, while rear-seat lap/shoulder belts were 41 
percent effective (54 FR 25275, 25276; June 14, 1989). Therefore, there 
should not be any net loss of strength or benefits even if 
manufacturers install less strong lap belt anchorages.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies 
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been 
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. As explained 
above, this proposal could result in an annual savings of approximately 
one million dollars.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The anticipated slight savings would not affect the 
purchase of new vehicles by small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated 
with this proposed rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a 
significant impact on the human environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this 
proposed rule would not have significant federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

Submission of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal. 
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the

[[Page 24267]]

complete submission, including purportedly confidential business 
information, should be submitted to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the 
street address given above, and seven copies from which the purportedly 
confidential information has been deleted should be submitted to the 
Docket Section. A request for confidentiality should be accompanied by 
a cover letter setting forth the information specified in the agency's 
confidential business information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and 
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address 
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed 
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too 
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered 
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal 
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue 
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket 
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons 
continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR Part 
571 be amended as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 would continue 
to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. 571.210 would be amended by revising sections S4.2.1 and S4.2.2 
to read as follows:


Sec. 571.210  Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

* * * * *
    S4.2.1  Except as provided in S4.2.5, and except for side-facing 
seats, the anchorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts for 
any of the following seat belt assemblies shall withstand a 5,000 pound 
force when tested in accordance with S5.1 of this standard:
    (a) Type 1 seat belt assembly; and
    (b) Lap belt portion of either a Type 2 or automatic seat belt 
assembly that is equipped with a detachable upper torso belt.
    S4.2.2  Except as provided in S4.2.5, the anchorages, attachment 
hardware, and attachment bolts for any of the following seat belt 
assemblies shall withstand a 3,000 pound force applied to the lap belt 
portion of the seat belt assembly simultaneously with a 3,000 pound 
force applied to the shoulder belt portion of the seat belt assembly, 
when tested in accordance with S5.2 of this standard:
    (a) Type 2 and automatic seat belt assemblies that are installed to 
comply with Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208); and
    (b) Type 2 and automatic seat belt assemblies that are voluntarily 
installed at a seating position required to have a Type 1 seat belt 
assembly by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208).
* * * * *
    Issued on May 8, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-12033 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>