Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection, 51129-51132 [E6-14256]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘06’’ is the year of requalification, and
‘‘X’’ represents the symbols described in
paragraphs (f)(2) through (f)(9) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(9) For designation of the eddy
current examination combined with a
visual inspection, the marking is as
illustrated in paragraph (d) of this
section, except the ‘‘X’’ is replaced with
the letters ‘‘VE.’’
I 8. In part 180, Appendix C is added
to read as follows:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Appendix C to Part 180—Eddy Current
Examination With Visual Inspection for
DOT 3AL Cylinders Manufactured of
Aluminum Alloy 6351–T6
1. Examination Procedure. Each facility
performing eddy current examination with
visual inspection must develop, update, and
maintain a written examination procedure
applicable to the test equipment it uses to
perform eddy current examinations.
2. Visual examinations. Visual
examinations of the neck and shoulder area
of the cylinder must be conducted in
accordance with CGA pamphlet C–6.1 (IBR;
see § 171.7 of this subchapter).
3. Eddy Current Equipment. A reference
ring and probe for each DOT–3AL cylinder
manufactured of aluminum alloy 6351–T6 to
be inspected must be available at the
examination facility. Eddy current equipment
must be capable of accurately detecting the
notches on the standard reference ring.
4. Eddy Current Reference Ring. The
reference ring must be produced to represent
each cylinder to be tested. The reference ring
must include artificial notches to simulate a
neck crack. The size of the artificial notch
(depth and length) must have a depth less
than or equal to 1⁄3 of the wall thickness of
the neck and a length greater than or equal
to two threads. The standard reference must
have a drawing that includes the diameter of
the ring, and depth and length of each notch.
5. Condemnation Criteria. A cylinder must
be condemned if the eddy current
examination combined with visual
examination reveals any crack in the neck or
shoulder of 2 thread lengths or more.
6. Examination equipment records.
Records of eddy current inspection
equipment shall contain the following
information:
(i) Equipment manufacturer, model
number and serial number.
(ii) Probe description and unique
identification (e.g., serial number, part
number, etc.).
7. Eddy current examination reporting and
record retention requirements. Daily records
of eddy current examinations must be
maintained by the person who performs the
requalification until either the expiration of
the requalification period or until the
cylinder is again requalified, whichever
occurs first. These records shall be made
available for inspection by a representative of
the Department on request. Eddy current
examination records shall contain the
following information:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:37 Aug 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
(i) Specification of each standard reference
ring used to perform the eddy current
examination.
(ii) DOT specification or exemption
number of the cylinder; manufacturer’s name
or symbol; owner’s name or symbol, if
present; serial number; and, date of
manufacture.
(iii) Name of test operator performing the
eddy current examination.
(iv) Date of eddy current examination.
(vi) Acceptance/condemnation results (e.g.
pass or fail).
(vii) Retester identification number.
8. Personnel Qualification Requirements.
Each person who performs eddy current and
visual examinations, and evaluates and
certifies retest results must be certified by the
employer that he/she has been properly
trained and tested in the eddy current and
visual examination procedures.
9. Training Records. A record of current
training must be maintained for each
employee who performs eddy current and
visual examinations in accordance with
§ 172.704(d).
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 22,
2006, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 1.
Thomas J. Barrett,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6–14255 Filed 8–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
51129
(NPRM) published May 19, 2005,
NHTSA proposed the needed
installation procedures and proposed an
effective date for the final rule following
the NPRM. The agency anticipated in
the NPRM that a final rule would be
issued by September 1, 2006, that
provided sufficient leadtime for vehicles
to meet the suppression requirements
with LATCH-equipped child restraints.
Because we have not completed our
response to the comments to the NPRM,
this final rule delays, for one year, the
compliance date of the requirement for
vehicles to meet the air bag suppression
requirement with LATCH-equipped
child restraints. This delay allows us
additional time to publish our final
action on the rulemaking.
The amendments made by this
final rule are effective September 1,
2006. The compliance date for the
requirement for vehicles to meet the air
bag suppression requirements with
LATCH-equipped child restraints is
delayed until September 1, 2007.
Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions
for reconsideration of this final rule
must be received not later than October
13, 2006.
DATES:
Petitions for reconsideration
of this final rule must refer to the docket
and notice number set forth above and
be submitted to the Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590, with a
copy to Docket Management, Room PL–
401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to https://dms.dot.gov,
including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act
heading under Rulemaking Analyses
and Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents, go to
https://dms.dot.gov, or to Room PL–401
on the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
ADDRESSES:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21244]
RIN 2127–AJ59
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; delay of compliance
date.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Under the current version of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 208, vehicles that are
manufactured on or after September 1,
2006, are certified to the suppression
requirements and have a child restraint
anchorage system, commonly referred to
as a Lower Anchors and Tethers for
Children or ‘‘LATCH’’ system, in the
right front passenger seating position
must suppress the air bag for that
position when a child restraint is
installed at that position with the
LATCH system. However, the standard
does not yet specify detailed procedures
for installing that type of child restraint
in order to conduct the suppression test.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carla Cuentas, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, Light Duty
Vehicle Division (telephone 202–366–
1740, fax 202–493–2739); or Deirdre
Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel
(telephone 202–366–2992, fax 202–366–
3820). Both of these officials can be
reached at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\29AUR1.SGM
29AUR1
51130
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
I. Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ‘‘Occupant
crash protection’’ (49 CFR 571.208),
requires passenger vehicles to be
equipped with safety belts and frontal
air bags for the protection of vehicle
occupants in crashes. On May 12, 2000,
NHTSA published a final rule to require
that air bags be designed to provide
improved frontal crash protection for all
occupants, by means that include
advanced air bag technology
(‘‘Advanced Air Bag Rule,’’ 65 FR
30680, Docket No. NHTSA 00–7013).
Under the Advanced Air Bag Rule,
manufacturers are provided several
compliance options in order to
minimize the risk to infants and small
children from deploying air bags,
including an option to suppress an air
bag in the presence of a child restraint
system (CRS).
Manufacturers choosing to rely on an
air bag suppression system to minimize
the risk to children in a CRS must
ensure that the vehicle complies with
the suppression requirements when
tested with the CRSs specified in
Appendix A of the standard (see S19,
S21 and S23 of FMVSS No. 208). On
November 19, 2003, NHTSA revised
Appendix A by adding two CRSs that
are equipped with components that
attach to a vehicle’s LATCH 1 system (68
FR 65179, Docket No. NHTSA 03–
16476). On August 20, 2004, the agency
responded to a request for additional
leadtime by extending the compliance
date (from September 1, 2004 to
September 1, 2006). Thus, under that
final rule, vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2006, and certified as
meeting the suppression requirements
must meet the requirements when tested
with the LATCH-equipped CRSs
installed on a LATCH system (69 FR
51598; Docket No. NHTSA 2004–
18905).
The NPRM
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
FMVSS No. 208 currently does not
provide a specific procedure for
installing a LATCH-equipped CRS in a
1 ‘‘LATCH’’ stands for ‘‘Lower Anchors and
Tethers for Children,’’ a term that was developed
by child restraint manufacturers and retailers to
refer to the standardized child restraint anchorage
system that vehicle manufacturers must install in
vehicles pursuant to FMVSS No. 225 Child
Restraint Anchorage Systems (49 CFR 571.225). The
Latch system is comprised of two lower anchorages
and one tether anchorage. Each lower anchorage is
a rigid round rod or bar onto which the connector
of a child restraint system can be attached. FMVSS
No. 225 does not permit vehicle manufacturers to
install LATCH systems in front designated seating
positions unless the vehicle has an air bag on-off
switch meeting the requirements of S4.5.4 of
FMVSS No. 208.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:37 Aug 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
vehicle in order to conduct air bag
suppression testing. To address this,
NHTSA published an NPRM on May 19,
2005, proposing a specific procedure for
installing LATCH-equipped CRSs (70
FR 28878, Docket 21244; extension of
comment period, July 13, 2005, 70 FR
40280). The agency believed that the
procedure, which was based on how
CRSs are installed in the real world,
would provide for repeatable and
reproducible installation of the child
restraints (70 FR 28878; Docket 21244).
II. Extension of Compliance Date
The Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (the Alliance) submitted
several comments on the NPRM.
General Motors, a member of the
Alliance, also commented separately.
These commenters expressed concerns
that aspects of the proposed test
procedure allowed for ‘‘too much
variability to be a suitable test
procedure’’ (Alliance comment, August
17, 2005), and recommended a number
of modifications to improve the
procedure.
Because we have not completed our
response to the comments to the NPRM,
and due to the closeness of the
September 1, 2006 compliance date, this
final rule delays, for one year, the
effective date of the requirement that
vehicles manufactured certify that their
vehicles comply with the suppression
requirements when tested with the
LATCH-equipped CRSs. This delay
allows us additional time to take final
action on the proposal. As to whether
additional lead time beyond that
provided by the September 1, 2007 date
is needed to allow for manufacturer
implementation of the test procedures,
that issue will be addressed by the final
rule completing this rulemaking action
(RIN 2127–AJ59).
We find good cause for making this
rule delaying the current September 1,
2006 compliance date effective in less
than 30 days, i.e., September 1, 2006.
For reasons discussed in our proposal,
we tentatively concluded that certain
amendments should be made that
would provide needed guidance to
manufacturers, and also that the
compliance date of the relevant
requirements should be delayed. If the
September 1, 2006 compliance date
were not changed, the absence of any
established test procedures would affect
the ability of manufacturers to certify
compliance with those requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not
considered to be significant under E.O.
12866 or the Department’s Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979). This document
delays the date on which a requirement
that certain vehicles meet the air bag
suppression requirements with LATCHequipped CRSs is to become effective.
Since the delay maintains the status
quo, manufacturers will incur no costs
as a result of this document The impacts
of today’s amendment are so minimal so
as not to warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 60l et seq.,
NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this
action on small entities. I hereby certify
that this final rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The delay of
the effective date preserves the status
quo and will not affect the
responsibilities of small entities.
C. Executive Order No. 13132
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule in
accordance with the principles and
criteria set forth in Executive Order
13132, Federalism, and has determined
that this rule does not have sufficient
Federal implications to warrant
consultation with State and local
officials or the preparation of a
Federalism summary impact statement.
The rule will not have any substantial
impact on the States, or on the current
Federal-State relationship, or on the
current distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various local
officials. However, under 49 U.S.C.
30103, whenever a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect, a
State may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect
of performance which is not identical to
the Federal standard, except to the
extent that the state requirement
imposes a higher level of performance
and applies only to vehicles procured
for the State’s use.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the
purposes of the National Environmental
Policy Act. The agency has determined
that implementation of this action
would not have any significant impact
on the quality of the human
environment.
E:\FR\FM\29AUR1.SGM
29AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the new procedures established
by the Paperwork Reduction Act 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. This final rule does not
establish any new information
collection requirements.
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 for inflation with base year of
1995). This final rule will not result in
expenditures by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector in excess of $100 million
annually.
F. 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.’’ There are no voluntary
consensus standards affecting this final
rule.
I. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental, health, or safety risk that
NHTSA has reason to believe may have
a disproportionate effect on children.
This final rule is not subject to the
Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
E.O. 12866.
G. Civil Justice Reform
This final rule will not have any
retroactive effect. As noted above in the
discussion of Executive Order No.
13132, whenever a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect, a
State may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect
of performance which is not identical to
the Federal standard, except to the
extent that the state requirement
imposes a higher level of performance
and applies only to vehicles procured
for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets
forth a procedure for judicial review of
final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for
reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit
in court.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits
and other effects of proposed or final
J. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 18, 2001) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be economically
significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and is likely to have a significantly
adverse effect on the supply of,
distribution of, or use of energy; or (2)
that is designated by the Administrator
of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant
energy action. This final rule is not
subject to E.O. 13211.
K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in
the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
L. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
51131
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 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA amends chapter V of title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations by
amending 49 CFR part 571 as follows:
I
PART 571—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 571
of Title 49 continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.208 is amended by
revising section C of Appendix A, to
read as follows:
I
§ 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant
crash protection.
*
*
*
*
*
Appendix A to § 571.208—Selection of
Child Restraint Systems
*
*
*
*
*
C. Any of the following forward facing
toddler and forward-facing convertible child
restraint systems, manufactured on or after
December 1, 1999, may be used by the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to test the suppression
system of a vehicle that is manufactured on
or after the effective date and prior to the
termination date specified in the table below
and that has been certified as being in
compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19, or S21.
(Note: Any child restraint listed in this
subpart that is not recommended for use in
a rear-facing position by its manufacturer is
excluded from use in S20.2.1.4):
Effective and termination dates
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
January 17, 2002
Britax Roundabout 161 ..................................................................................................
Britax Expressway .........................................................................................................
Century Encore 4612 .....................................................................................................
Century STE 1000 4416 ................................................................................................
Cosco Olymp ian 02803 ................................................................................................
Cosco Touriva 02519 ....................................................................................................
Evenflo Horizon V 425 ...................................................................................................
Evenflo Medallion 254 ...................................................................................................
Safety 1st Comfort Ride 22–400 ...................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:37 Aug 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Effective ..............................
.............................................
Effective ..............................
Effective ..............................
Effective ..............................
Effective ..............................
Effective ..............................
Effective ..............................
.............................................
E:\FR\FM\29AUR1.SGM
29AUR1
September 1, 2007
Remains Effective.
Effective.
Remains Effective.
Remains Effective.
Remains Effective.
Remains Effective.
Remains Effective.
Remains Effective.
Effective.
51132
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2006–24497]
RIN 2127–AI93
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; delay of compliance
date.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Our safety standard on
occupant protection in interior impact
requires, in part, that light vehicles
provide head protection when an
occupant’s head strikes upper interior
components, such as pillars, side rails,
headers, and the roof during a crash.
While these requirements already apply
to most vehicles, the compliance date
for altered vehicles and vehicles built in
two or more stages is September 1, 2006.
In April 2006, we responded to two
petitions for rulemaking by proposing
certain amendments to the head
protection requirements as they apply to
these vehicles. We also proposed to
delay the compliance date of the
requirements for these vehicles until
September 1, 2008. Given the short
period of time until the current
September 1, 2006 compliance date, and
as a partial step toward completing
action on the April 2006 proposal, we
are, by this final rule, delaying the
compliance date for one year. This will
give us time to fully analyze the
comments and reach a decision on other
aspects of the proposal, including the
proposed additional delay in the
compliance date.
DATES: The amendments made by this
final rule are effective September 1,
2006. The compliance date for the head
impact protection requirements for
altered vehicles and vehicles built in
two or more stages is delayed until
September 1, 2007.
Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions
for reconsideration of this final rule
must be received not later than October
13, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:32 Aug 28, 2006
Petitions for reconsideration
of this final rule must refer to the docket
and notice number set forth above and
be submitted to the Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590, with a
copy to Docket Management, Room PL–
401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Note that all
documents received will be posted
without change to https://dms.dot.gov,
including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act
heading under Rulemaking Analyses
and Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents, go to
https://dms.dot.gov, or to Room PL–401
on the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590:
For technical and policy issues: Lori
Summers, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, telephone: (202) 366–4917,
facsimile: (202) 366–4329, e-mail:
Lori.Summers@dot.gov.
For legal issues: Edward Glancy,
Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone:
(202) 366–2992, facsimile: (202) 366–
3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior
Impact, requires, in part, that light
vehicles provide head protection when
an occupant’s head strikes upper
interior components, such as pillars,
side rails, headers, and the roof during
a crash. While these requirements
already apply to most vehicles, the
compliance date for altered vehicles and
vehicles built in two or more stages is
September 1, 2006.
The Recreation Vehicle Industry
Association (RVIA) and the National
Truck Equipment Association (NTEA)
petitioned the agency to exclude
permanently certain types of altered
vehicles and vehicles manufactured in
two or more stages from these
requirements. On April 24, 2006,
NHTSA published in the Federal
Register (71 FR 20932) a document
responding to these petitions for
rulemaking and proposing certain
amendments to the standard.
Based on a careful consideration of
both the safety benefits of the upper
interior protection requirements, and
practicability concerns relating to
ADDRESSES:
Issued: August 22, 2006.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6–14256 Filed 8–28–06; 8:45 am]
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
vehicles built in two or more stages and
certain altered vehicles, we proposed to
limit these requirements to only the
front seating positions of those vehicles.
Further, we tentatively concluded that it
is appropriate to exclude a narrow
group of multi-stage vehicles delivered
to the final stage manufacturer without
an occupant compartment because of
impracticability concerns.
We also proposed to delay the
effective date of the head impact
protection requirements as they apply to
final stage manufacturers and alterers
until September 1, 2008.
We received two comments on the
proposal, from RVIA and NTEA. Both
commenters supported delaying the
existing compliance date. The two
commenters also each raised a number
of issues about certain aspects of our
proposal, and asked the agency to
provide additional relief.
Given the short period of time until
the current September 1, 2006
compliance date, and as a partial step
toward completing action on the April
2006 proposal, we have decided, at this
time, to delay the compliance date for
one year. This will give us time to fully
analyze the comments and reach a
decision on other aspects of the
proposal, including the proposed
additional delay in the compliance date.
We find good cause for making this
rule delaying the current September 1,
2006 compliance date effective in less
than 30 days, i.e., September 1, 2006.
For reasons discussed in our April 2006
proposal, we have tentatively concluded
that certain amendments should be
made that would provide relief to final
stage manufacturers and alterers, and
also that the compliance date of the
relevant requirements should be
delayed. If the September 1, 2006
compliance date were not changed, it is
likely that some final stage
manufacturers and alterers would need
to immediately stop producing or
altering some of the specialty vehicles
they provide.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), provides for making
determinations whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and to the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
E:\FR\FM\29AUR1.SGM
29AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 29, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51129-51132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14256]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21244]
RIN 2127-AJ59
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; delay of compliance date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the current version of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, vehicles that are manufactured on or after
September 1, 2006, are certified to the suppression requirements and
have a child restraint anchorage system, commonly referred to as a
Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children or ``LATCH'' system, in the
right front passenger seating position must suppress the air bag for
that position when a child restraint is installed at that position with
the LATCH system. However, the standard does not yet specify detailed
procedures for installing that type of child restraint in order to
conduct the suppression test. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
published May 19, 2005, NHTSA proposed the needed installation
procedures and proposed an effective date for the final rule following
the NPRM. The agency anticipated in the NPRM that a final rule would be
issued by September 1, 2006, that provided sufficient leadtime for
vehicles to meet the suppression requirements with LATCH-equipped child
restraints.
Because we have not completed our response to the comments to the
NPRM, this final rule delays, for one year, the compliance date of the
requirement for vehicles to meet the air bag suppression requirement
with LATCH-equipped child restraints. This delay allows us additional
time to publish our final action on the rulemaking.
DATES: The amendments made by this final rule are effective September
1, 2006. The compliance date for the requirement for vehicles to meet
the air bag suppression requirements with LATCH-equipped child
restraints is delayed until September 1, 2007.
Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received not later than October 13, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, with a copy to Docket
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http:/
/dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see
the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, go
to https://dms.dot.gov, or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Cuentas, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, Light Duty Vehicle Division (telephone 202-
366-1740, fax 202-493-2739); or Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel
(telephone 202-366-2992, fax 202-366-3820). Both of these officials can
be reached at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 51130]]
I. Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant
crash protection'' (49 CFR 571.208), requires passenger vehicles to be
equipped with safety belts and frontal air bags for the protection of
vehicle occupants in crashes. On May 12, 2000, NHTSA published a final
rule to require that air bags be designed to provide improved frontal
crash protection for all occupants, by means that include advanced air
bag technology (``Advanced Air Bag Rule,'' 65 FR 30680, Docket No.
NHTSA 00-7013). Under the Advanced Air Bag Rule, manufacturers are
provided several compliance options in order to minimize the risk to
infants and small children from deploying air bags, including an option
to suppress an air bag in the presence of a child restraint system
(CRS).
Manufacturers choosing to rely on an air bag suppression system to
minimize the risk to children in a CRS must ensure that the vehicle
complies with the suppression requirements when tested with the CRSs
specified in Appendix A of the standard (see S19, S21 and S23 of FMVSS
No. 208). On November 19, 2003, NHTSA revised Appendix A by adding two
CRSs that are equipped with components that attach to a vehicle's LATCH
\1\ system (68 FR 65179, Docket No. NHTSA 03-16476). On August 20,
2004, the agency responded to a request for additional leadtime by
extending the compliance date (from September 1, 2004 to September 1,
2006). Thus, under that final rule, vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2006, and certified as meeting the suppression
requirements must meet the requirements when tested with the LATCH-
equipped CRSs installed on a LATCH system (69 FR 51598; Docket No.
NHTSA 2004-18905).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``LATCH'' stands for ``Lower Anchors and Tethers for
Children,'' a term that was developed by child restraint
manufacturers and retailers to refer to the standardized child
restraint anchorage system that vehicle manufacturers must install
in vehicles pursuant to FMVSS No. 225 Child Restraint Anchorage
Systems (49 CFR 571.225). The Latch system is comprised of two lower
anchorages and one tether anchorage. Each lower anchorage is a rigid
round rod or bar onto which the connector of a child restraint
system can be attached. FMVSS No. 225 does not permit vehicle
manufacturers to install LATCH systems in front designated seating
positions unless the vehicle has an air bag on-off switch meeting
the requirements of S4.5.4 of FMVSS No. 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM
FMVSS No. 208 currently does not provide a specific procedure for
installing a LATCH-equipped CRS in a vehicle in order to conduct air
bag suppression testing. To address this, NHTSA published an NPRM on
May 19, 2005, proposing a specific procedure for installing LATCH-
equipped CRSs (70 FR 28878, Docket 21244; extension of comment period,
July 13, 2005, 70 FR 40280). The agency believed that the procedure,
which was based on how CRSs are installed in the real world, would
provide for repeatable and reproducible installation of the child
restraints (70 FR 28878; Docket 21244).
II. Extension of Compliance Date
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance) submitted
several comments on the NPRM. General Motors, a member of the Alliance,
also commented separately. These commenters expressed concerns that
aspects of the proposed test procedure allowed for ``too much
variability to be a suitable test procedure'' (Alliance comment, August
17, 2005), and recommended a number of modifications to improve the
procedure.
Because we have not completed our response to the comments to the
NPRM, and due to the closeness of the September 1, 2006 compliance
date, this final rule delays, for one year, the effective date of the
requirement that vehicles manufactured certify that their vehicles
comply with the suppression requirements when tested with the LATCH-
equipped CRSs. This delay allows us additional time to take final
action on the proposal. As to whether additional lead time beyond that
provided by the September 1, 2007 date is needed to allow for
manufacturer implementation of the test procedures, that issue will be
addressed by the final rule completing this rulemaking action (RIN
2127-AJ59).
We find good cause for making this rule delaying the current
September 1, 2006 compliance date effective in less than 30 days, i.e.,
September 1, 2006. For reasons discussed in our proposal, we
tentatively concluded that certain amendments should be made that would
provide needed guidance to manufacturers, and also that the compliance
date of the relevant requirements should be delayed. If the September
1, 2006 compliance date were not changed, the absence of any
established test procedures would affect the ability of manufacturers
to certify compliance with those requirements.
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). This document delays
the date on which a requirement that certain vehicles meet the air bag
suppression requirements with LATCH-equipped CRSs is to become
effective. Since the delay maintains the status quo, manufacturers will
incur no costs as a result of this document The impacts of today's
amendment are so minimal so as not to warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 60l et
seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities.
I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The delay of the
effective date preserves the status quo and will not affect the
responsibilities of small entities.
C. Executive Order No. 13132
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132, Federalism,
and has determined that this rule does not have sufficient Federal
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. The rule will
not have any substantial impact on the States, or on the current
Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various local officials. However, under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.
[[Page 51131]]
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the new procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act
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. This final rule does not establish any new
information collection requirements.
F. 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.'' There are no voluntary consensus standards
affecting this final rule.
G. Civil Justice Reform
This final rule will not have any retroactive effect. As noted
above in the discussion of Executive Order No. 13132, whenever a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not
adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of
performance which is not identical to the Federal standard, except to
the extent that the state requirement imposes a higher level of
performance and applies only to vehicles procured for the State's use.
49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final
rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for
reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may
file suit in court.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 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 for inflation with base year of 1995). This final rule will
not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million
annually.
I. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. This final rule is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as
defined in E.O. 12866.
J. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined
under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse effect
on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that is
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This final rule is
not subject to E.O. 13211.
K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
L. 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends chapter V of title 49
of the Code of Federal Regulations by amending 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:
PART 571--[AMENDED]
0
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.
0
2. Section 571.208 is amended by revising section C of Appendix A, to
read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
* * * * *
Appendix A to Sec. 571.208--Selection of Child Restraint Systems
* * * * *
C. Any of the following forward facing toddler and forward-
facing convertible child restraint systems, manufactured on or after
December 1, 1999, may be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to test the suppression system of a vehicle that is
manufactured on or after the effective date and prior to the
termination date specified in the table below and that has been
certified as being in compliance with 49 CFR 571.208 S19, or S21.
(Note: Any child restraint listed in this subpart that is not
recommended for use in a rear-facing position by its manufacturer is
excluded from use in S20.2.1.4):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective and termination dates
--------------------------------------
January 17, 2002 September 1, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Roundabout 161............ Effective......... Remains
Effective.
Britax Expressway................ .................. Effective.
Century Encore 4612.............. Effective......... Remains
Effective.
Century STE 1000 4416............ Effective......... Remains
Effective.
Cosco Olymp ian 02803............ Effective......... Remains
Effective.
Cosco Touriva 02519.............. Effective......... Remains
Effective.
Evenflo Horizon V 425............ Effective......... Remains
Effective.
Evenflo Medallion 254............ Effective......... Remains
Effective.
Safety 1st Comfort Ride 22-400... .................. Effective.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51132]]
* * * * *
Issued: August 22, 2006.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-14256 Filed 8-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
