[Federal Register: March 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 47)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10676-10677]
[DOCID:fr12mr09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0053; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-11]

Modification of Class D and E Airspace, Removal of Class E
Airspace; Aguadilla, PR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class D Airspace, modifies Class E
airspace designated as an extension to Class D surface area and removes
Class E airspace designated as surface area for an airport at
Aguadilla, PR. The Rafael Hernandez Airport Air Traffic Control Tower
will now operate on a full-time basis, thus the associated controlled
airspace is being modified and removed to reflect the change. This
action enhances the National Airspace System by providing controlled
airspace in the vicinity of Aguadilla, PR.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 7, 2009. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. Comments for
inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before April 27,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket Number FAA-2009-0053; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-11, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received
comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
(see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal
docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,
Georgia 30320; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body
of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse
or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse
or negative comment is received within the comment period, the
regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the
close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were
received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within
the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice
of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct
final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of
proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Comments Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. The direct final rule is used in this
case to facilitate the timing of the charting schedule and enhance the
operation at the airport, while still allowing and requesting public
comment on this rulemaking action. An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov. Communications should identify both docket numbers
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the
caption ADDRESSES above or through the website. All communications
received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered,
and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments
received. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed
through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/
air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports
the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in
evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether
additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted
will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments,
in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those
wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in
response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the following statement is made: ''Comments to Docket No. FAA-
2009-0053; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-11.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying the Class D and E airspace descriptions at
Aguadilla, PR to reflect the change to full-time operations of the Air
Traffic Control Tower of the Rafael

Hernandez Airport. The reference used in the legal descriptions to
impart a part-time operation of the Class D and E Airspace designated
as an extension to Class D surface area (E4) is being removed. The
Class E airspace designated as surface area for an airport (E2) will no
longer be required since the Class D Airspace will be in effect
continuously, thus, this amendment removes that E2 airspace associated
with Aguadilla, PR. Controlled airspace extending upward from the
surface of the Earth is required to encompass the airspace necessary
for instrument approaches for aircraft operating under Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR). The current Class D and E4 airspace areas are
sufficient for these approaches; no additional controlled airspace must
be defined. Designations for Class D and E airspace areas extending
upward from the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order
7400.9S, signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31, 2008, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein will 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is
determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies controlled airspace at Aguadilla, PR.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed October 3, 2008, effective October 31, 2008, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO PR D Aguadilla, PR [REVISED]

Rafael Hernandez Airport, PR
    (Lat. 18[deg]29'42'' N., long 67[deg]07'46'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface of the Earth to
and including 2,700 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of the Rafael
Hernandez Airport.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ASO PR E2 Aguadilla, PR [REMOVE]

Rafael Hernandez Airport, PR
* * * * *

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a
Class D Surface Area.

* * * * *

ASO PR E4 Aguadilla, PR [REVISED]

Rafael Hernandez Airport, PR
    (Lat. 18[deg]29'42'' N., long 67[deg]07'46'' W.)
Borinquen VORTAC
    (Lat. 18[deg]29'53'' N., long 67[deg]06'30'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.4 miles
each side of the Borinquen VORTAC 257[deg] radial extending from the
4.5 mile radius to 7 miles west of the VORTAC.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 25, 2009.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
 [FR Doc. E9-5282 Filed 3-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 86]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29073]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ19-16-001]

Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on November 24, 2020, the Hoosier Energy Rural
Electric Cooperative, Inc. submitted its tariff filing: Compliance
Filing for the October 26th Order to be effective 11/25/2020.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 18, 2021.

    Dated: December 28, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-29073 Filed 12-31-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19155-19164]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7623]

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

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 mid-size 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    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<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

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

FMVSS No. 210 and Figure 2 in FMVSS No. 222, ``School bus passenger
seating and crash protection'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For 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.
    \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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Robbins, D. 1985. ``Anthropometric Specifications for Mid-
Size Male Dummy,'' Volume 2, UMTRI, DOT HS 806 716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                HIII 5th
                                       FAD1       HIII 50th Male       FAD2        HIII 10-year-    percentile
                                                                                old child        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/             18.50/470        20.2/513       12.38/314       15.55/395        17.5/445
 millimeters (mm))..............
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Briefly 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 (1\1/4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A document describing the inspection criteria used to make
this determination has been placed in the docket for this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A Faro Arm is a multiple axis articulated measuring arm with
six degrees of freedom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 S<IP_ADDRESS>, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ H-point means the mechanically hinged hip point of a manikin
which simulates the actual pivot center of the human torso and
thigh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         FMVSS No. 210 test results
                                   -------------------------------------
   Vehicle year, make, and model      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     Pass.............  Pass.
 Van.
2005 Chrysler Town and Country      Pass.............  Pass.
 Mini Van with Stow N' Go seating.
2005 Ford F-150 Super Crew Cab      Pass.............  Pass.
 Pick-up Truck.
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ S5 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 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.
    \12\ Assuming 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 73 FR 58887, 58888; definition of ``designated seating
position.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 off-set the purchase cost of the FADs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
Sec.  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 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

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:

Sec.  571.5  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (5) ``Drawing Package for the Force Application Device (FAD) FAD1
and FAD2,'' June 6, 2006, into Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec.  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

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 Sec.  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

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 (1\1/4\ 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 lb-force) 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.
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MR12.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MR12.002

    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