Document ID: NHTSA-2012-0036-0023
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages
Posted Date: 2015-03-02T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 40 (Monday, March 2, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11148-11153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04162]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

[[Page 11149]]

SUMMARY: This document supplements NHTSA's March 2012 notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages,'' to specify 
a force application device (FAD) for use as a testing interface to 
transfer loads onto the seat belt anchorage system during compliance 
tests of anchorage strength. The agency received a number of comments 
on the NPRM that raised issues concerning the feasibility of the FAD 
proposal. After reviewing the comments, NHTSA has decided to propose in 
this SNPRM an alternative test procedure, i.e., one that would maintain 
the current FMVSS No. 210 body blocks and adopt procedures ensuring 
that the placement of the body blocks, at pre-load, is sufficiently 
specified. The agency requests comments on this alternative strategy 
and other potential enhancements to the current body block test 
procedure.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 1, 2015.

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 state 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 notice 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: Mr. John Piazza, 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. Background
    a. NPRM for New FAD
    b. FMVSS No. 210
    c. History Surrounding the Development of the FAD
II. Overview of NPRM Comments
    a. Design and Performance of the FAD Device
    b. Harmonization
    c. Proposed Test Procedure
    d. Cost and Lead Time
III. Alternative Strategy Under Consideration--Maintaining the Body 
Blocks and Refining the Test Procedure
    a. Preliminary Zone Concept for Placement of the Body Blocks
    b. Planned Research To Evaluate Alternative Strategy
IV. Request for Public Comments on Alternative Strategy
V. Public Participation
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

a. NPRM for New FAD

    On March 30, 2012, the agency published in the Federal Register an 
NPRM (77 FR 19155) that proposed to amend FMVSS No. 210 to replace the 
pelvic body block and the upper torso body block with a new Force 
Application Device (FAD). The rationale provided for the proposal 
included the FAD's ease of use, that it is representative of the human 
form, and, most importantly, that it provides a consistent test 
configuration and load path to the seat belt assembly anchorages 
without affecting the stringency of the compliance test.

b. FMVSS No. 210

    FMVSS No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages,'' applies to 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 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 combination lap/shoulder belts must 
withstand a 13,345 Newton (N) force (3,000 pounds) 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 13,345 N force must be attained in not more than 30 seconds and 
maintained for 10 seconds.\1\ In the current standard, 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 FMVSS No. 210).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For lap belt-only anchorages, the seat belt anchorage must 
withstand a force as it is increased to 22,241 N (5,000 pounds) in 
not more than thirty seconds and withstand that force as it is held 
for 10 seconds.
    \2\ The particular pelvic body block used depends on the type of 
seat. Typically the body block in Figure 2A of FMVSS No. 210 is 
used. The Figure 2B body block of FMVSS No. 210 is optionally used 
for center seating positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. History Surrounding the Development of the FAD

    The current standard does not expressly specify the position the 
body blocks must be in relative to the seat prior to the strength 
testing. The absence of this information has, in the past, resulted in 
manufacturers conducting compliance testing differently than NHTSA, as 
illustrated in an enforcement action brought against a manufacturer in 
the 1990s for an apparent noncompliance with FMVSS No. 210.\3\ In the 
compliance test at issue in the Chrysler case, NHTSA positioned the 
pelvic body block away from the rear seat back. Chrysler 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 during the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See United States v. Chrysler Corp., 158 F.3d 1350 (D.C. 
Cir. 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM proposing the FAD, the agency identified several other 
challenges associated with the use of the body blocks in addition to 
the issues

[[Page 11150]]

with positioning the devices. First, the body blocks typically require 
two technicians to position them, and positioning may be a somewhat 
iterative process because the upper torso block can move in a way that 
causes a loss of tension during set-up. Additionally, due to the range 
of motion associated with the body blocks (which can move independently 
of each other), there can be some spooling out of the seat belt webbing 
during an FMVSS No. 210 test. For some test fixtures utilizing a 
hydraulic ram with a fixed stroke, the ram can reach its full stroke 
before a requisite force level is reached.
    In order to address the issues identified by the Chrysler court and 
resolve some of the challenges associated with the test set-up and 
performance of the body blocks, the agency embarked on a program to 
develop a new FMVSS No. 210 test device. 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. The two different size versions 
of the FADs are called FAD1 and FAD2. The external dimensions of the 
FAD1 are based on digital data developed by the University of Michigan 
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) as a representation of the 
50th percentile adult male.\4\ NHTSA developed the specifications for 
the FAD2, a smaller version of the force application device, to use at 
designated seating positions that are too narrow in width to 
accommodate the FAD1, such as some rear center seats in passenger cars 
and multipurpose passenger vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Robbins, D., ``Anthropometric Specifications for Mid-Size 
Male Dummy,'' Volume 2, UMTRI, DOT HS 806 716 (1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Overview of NPRM Comments

    The agency received 13 comments in response to the NPRM from 
vehicle manufacturers and groups, suppliers, and a test facility.\5\ 
The commenters stated a number of concerns with the proposed use of the 
FAD. We believe that many of the commenters' concerns and questions 
might stem from lack of hands-on experience with the new FAD. While 
these comments will be responded to in the final notice, they are 
briefly summarized in the following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These included: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 
Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, Inc., National Truck 
Equipment Association, Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association, 
Hino Motors, Ltd., Navistar, Inc., Daimler Trucks North America, 
Nissan North America, Inc., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., EvoBus 
GmbH, Freedman Seating Company, Johnson Controls, Inc., and T[Uuml]V 
Rheinland Kraftfahrt GmbH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Design and Performance of the FAD Device

    Several commenters raised concerns associated with the performance 
of their seat belt assemblies during compliance testing if tested with 
the FADs. The medium to heavy-duty vehicle industry was notably 
concerned with the lack of testing with the FAD on medium to heavy-duty 
trucks and how the FAD could potentially affect the performance of 
their seat belt anchorages during compliance testing. A number of 
commenters noted the differences in the FAD's range of motion (i.e., 
the manner in which the FAD moved during testing) and load values (in 
NHTSA's testing) in comparison to the current body blocks.
    The agency also received several comments on the FAD's design. 
Commenters questioned the durability and strength of the FADs since the 
agency did not conduct tests to failure, as commenters suggested that 
vehicle manufacturers do. There were also concerns with respect to the 
potential for seat belt slippage during FAD testing because of the 
FAD's polyurethane smoothness. Commenters also believed there was 
potential for certain FAD parts to cause damage to the seat belt 
webbing, and expressed concern about an observation that the bridged 
pull yoke digs into the seat. Others asked why a test device with a 
human form is superior to the current blocks, and some made note of the 
increased weight of the FAD versus the current body blocks. Commenters 
also suggested checking the completeness of the drawing package (e.g., 
tolerances, indicating where forces should be applied) and requested 3-
D data for the FADs.

b. Harmonization

    Harmonization with other countries was also a reason some 
commenters gave for not supporting the use of the FAD. They argued that 
the use of the FAD would require additional testing on their part and 
would increase test costs. Several commenters suggested initiating a 
Global Technical Regulation to facilitate global harmonization.

c. Proposed Test Procedure

    Several commenters raised questions or concerns regarding the 
proposed test procedure for the FADs. For example, there were requests 
for clarification on: Contact between adjacent FADs and the vehicle 
interior at pre-load and during the test; the belt slack procedure; the 
test position for an adjustable turning loop; the seating procedure 
when the seat centerline is not aligned with the seating reference 
point; and where exactly the forces need to be applied on the FAD. 
Commenters also suggested reducing the hold time requirement for the 
required load. Questions were also raised surrounding the proposed 
procedure for determining when to replace a FAD1 with a FAD2, and some 
suggestions were made on this procedure that pertain to only buses. 
Commenters also questioned the appropriateness of testing side-facing 
seats with the FADs and requested clarification on the associated pull 
direction. Additional suggestions were made regarding the proposed test 
procedure that include the use of a dedicated test belt and the use of 
a booster seat for the FAD2 based on its shoulder height.

d. Cost and Lead Time

    Cost burden and lead time were major sources of concern, 
particularly for the medium to heavy-duty vehicle industry. Commenters 
argued that the cost of acquiring the FADs was underestimated. 
Commenters also stated that they would have to conduct tests to verify 
that the use of the FAD does not affect the compliance of their 
vehicles with the FMVSS No. 210 requirements, and if in fact it did 
affect the performance, they would incur redesign and certification 
costs. In addition, commenters stated that not harmonizing with the 
requirements of other countries would also drive up test costs. They 
suggest these costs far outweigh any cost savings attributed to the 
ease of use of the FADs. Some suggestions to reduce the burden of the 
proposal were to make the FAD an optional test device, or allow testing 
with the current body blocks for vehicles that are certified by their 
use and only require the use of the FAD when the vehicle undergoes 
recertification. Others suggested extending the lead time for any 
changeover to the FAD, and delaying the use of the FAD until it is a 
globally harmonized test device.

III. Alternative Strategy Under Consideration--Maintaining the Body 
Blocks and Refining the Test Procedure

    The FAD was developed in order to, among other things, provide a 
consistent test configuration and load path to the seat belt assembly 
anchorages without affecting the stringency of the testing. Given the 
comments received on the NPRM, the agency has decided to evaluate the 
feasibility of maintaining the current body blocks and refining the 
test procedure such that the standard provides sufficient information 
about the pre-test positioning of the body blocks so that manufacturers 
are

[[Page 11151]]

informed of the range of positions that may be tested to determine 
compliance.
    We emphasize that although the agency is considering the option of 
retaining the body blocks and refining the FMVSS No. 210 test 
procedure, the agency is still considering replacing the body blocks 
with the FAD, as proposed in the March 2012 NPRM, or possibly 
incorporating the FAD as an optional testing tool. The comments 
received in response to this SNPRM, along with the comments already 
received in response to the NPRM, as well as the results of the 
agency's ongoing research and development, will inform the agency's 
final decision.

a. Preliminary Zone Concept for Placement of the Body Blocks

    The agency is considering specifying zones within which the body 
blocks would be placed for testing purposes, as it has already done in 
FMVSS No. 222, ``School bus passenger seating and crash protection.'' 
(See final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 222, 73 FR 62744, October 21, 
2008.) As part of the 2008 upgrade to FMVSS No. 222, the agency adopted 
a positioning procedure for the torso body block used in the quasi-
static test for lap/shoulder seat belts on school buses. The procedure 
establishes a zone in which the body block must be located. 
Specifically, after the pre-load application is complete, the origin of 
the torso body block radius \6\ at any point across the torso body 
block thickness must lie within a zone defined by specified boundaries. 
The forward boundary of this zone is established by a transverse 
vertical plane of the vehicle located 100 mm longitudinally forward of 
the seating reference point. The upper and lower boundaries of the zone 
are 75 mm above and below the horizontal plane located midway between 
the horizontal plane passing through the school bus torso belt adjusted 
height (specified in S3 of FMVSS No. 210), and the horizontal plane 100 
mm below the seating reference point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The phrase ``origin of the torso body block radius'' is used 
in FMVSS No. 222. The phrase refers to the center of the flat edge 
of the torso body block.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is considering the possibility of utilizing zones such 
as the above for the initial placement of the current body blocks for 
FMVSS No. 210 compliance testing. Separate zones may be established for 
the torso and pelvic body blocks. By refining the current test 
procedure to include these zones, NHTSA intends for the standard to be 
clearer as to how the agency will position the current body blocks. The 
agency does not intend to increase the stringency of the standard per 
se.

b. Planned Research To Evaluate Alternative Strategy

    The agency has initiated research to aid in the development of the 
zones bounding the initial placement for the current body blocks. The 
research will evaluate the zone concept across different vehicle types 
and seat configurations and establish the appropriate zone boundaries 
to ensure that it is feasible and practicable for all vehicles. This 
research will involve a range of seat and vehicle types including heavy 
vehicles. The research is expected to be completed in the winter of 
2015.

IV. Request for Public Comments on Alternative Strategy

    To assist the agency in evaluating whether and how to amend the 
current test procedure in order to maintain the use of the body blocks, 
NHTSA invites comments on the zone concept that is under consideration, 
as well as other possible solutions. Specifically, we request comments 
on, but not limited to, how the zones should be established in the 
vehicle environment, how to verify that the body blocks are within the 
specified zones under pre-load in the vehicle environment, and any 
make/model-specific issues that would impact the implementation of the 
proposed body block positioning procedure for all vehicles that must 
meet FMVSS No. 210. NHTSA encourages commenters to provide specific 
information or views on this matter and requests that the rationale for 
the comments be specific and supported by data, including any relevant 
analyses. While we do not intend to preclude commenters from 
identifying potential alternative solutions, we ask that the 
commenters' recommendations be consistent with the existing standard 
requirements and test procedure.

V. 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.
    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 DOT's Docket Management Facility 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, 
the Docket Management Facility 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 received before the close of business 
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent 
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date. If 
the docket 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.

[[Page 11152]]

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments at DOT's Docket Management Facility at 
the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the facility 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.

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.
    The cost impact of using the current FMVSS No. 210 body blocks 
would be minimal to nonexistent, since the status quo would basically 
be maintained.\7\ The agency might develop procedures for installing 
and positioning the existing body blocks, but NHTSA does not believe 
that there would be significant incremental costs associated with using 
the procedures to test for compliance with FMVSS No. 210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The estimated impact of the proposal to adopt the FAD was 
discussed in the preamble to the March 30, 2012 NPRM (77 FR at 
19159).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the approach considered by this 
SNPRM would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    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. Although the majority of motor vehicle manufacturers 
would not qualify as a small business, there are a number of vehicle 
manufacturers that are small businesses. This SNPRM would not have a 
significant economic impact on these small businesses because the 
approach considered by this document would basically adopt the status 
quo used in FMVSS No. 210. The agency might develop procedures for 
installing and positioning the existing body blocks, but NHTSA does not 
believe that there would be significant incremental costs associated 
with using the procedures to test for compliance with FMVSS No. 210.
    Small organizations and small governmental units would not be 
significantly affected by this SNPRM since the potential cost impacts 
associated with this action would not significantly affect the price of 
new motor vehicles. The cost impact of using the current FMVSS No. 210 
body blocks is minimal to nonexistent, since the status quo would 
basically be maintained.

c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's SNPRM 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 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 Orders 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 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

[[Page 11153]]

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) (Pub. L. 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) 
International. 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 technical report (TR 1417-1974) and an 
SAE International standard (J384, Rev. JUN94) that have testing 
recommendations for vehicle seat belt anchorages. Both recommend the 
use of body blocks, similar to those currently specified in FMVSS No. 
210, for applying the required test loads. The alternative strategy the 
agency is now considering in this SNPRM would continue the use of the 
FMVSS No. 210 body blocks. Accordingly, the alternative strategy 
employing the current body blocks is consistent with the ISO report and 
SAE standard. However, NHTSA has tentatively determined that the ISO 
report and SAE standard, among other matters, do not specify the 
positioning of the body blocks referenced in both with sufficient 
specificity to achieve the goals of this rulemaking. Thus, NHTSA has 
decided to base this SNPRM on the existing FMVSS No. 210 body blocks 
rather than explore using new ones, and to develop possible test 
procedures that make clear how the body blocks are to be positioned 
during FMVSS No. 210 compliance testing.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-04162 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P