Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assemblies, 51522-51529 [E6-14479]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 30, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51522-51529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14479]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2006-25725]
RIN 2127-AJ92


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assemblies

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to three petitions for reconsideration 
of our August 2005 final rule amending the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard for seat belt assemblies. The amendments redefined and 
clarified certain requirements and established a new test methodology 
for emergency-locking retractors. The petitions for reconsideration 
requested that the agency adopt additional amendments. The petitions 
are granted in part and denied in part, and, through this document, we 
are amending the standard accordingly.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this final rule are 
effective October 30, 2006.
    Compliance Date: The requirements of the August 2005 final rule, as 
amended by today's rule, become mandatory for all seat belt assemblies 
subject to the standard that are manufactured on or after February 22, 
2007. Voluntary compliance is permitted before that date.
    Petitions for Reconsideration: If you wish to submit a petition for 
reconsideration for this rule, your petition must be received by 
October 16, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number above and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.
    See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this document (Section 
VI; Rulemaking Analyses and Notices) for DOT's Privacy Act Statement 
regarding documents submitted to the agency's dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 
Christopher Wiacek, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (Telephone: 
202-366-4801) (Fax: 202-493-2290).
    For legal issues, you may call Mr. Eric Stas, Office of Chief 
Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820).
    You may send mail to these officials at National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Decision
II. Background
III. Petitions for Reconsideration
IV. Discussion and Analysis
    A. Angle Tolerances
    1. Acceleration Tests
    2. Tilt-Lock Requirements
    B. Determination of Lock-Up
    C. Requirements for Dual-Sensing ELRs
    D. Other Issues
V. Benefits and Costs
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Summary of Decision

    This document responds to three petitions for reconsideration of 
our August 22, 2005 final rule \1\ amending Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. That final rule 
amended the standard to redefine the requirements and to establish a 
new test methodology for emergency-locking retractors (ELRs). 
Specifically, the final rule established a new, more tightly defined 
acceleration-time (A-T) corridor, added a figure illustrating the new 
acceleration-time corridor, provided a tolerance on angle measurements, 
and adopted similar instrumentation specifications to those currently 
found in other FMVSSs containing dynamic tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 70 FR 48883 (August 22, 2005) (Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22052-
1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitions for reconsideration of the August 2005 final rule were 
submitted by the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC) \2\, BMW 
of North America (BMW) \3\, and TAKATA-PETRI AG (TAKATA-PETRI).\4\ The 
petitioners requested additional amendments to Standard No. 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20052-3 and 4.
    \3\ Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20052-5.
    \4\ Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20052-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the August 2005 final rule was to clarify the test 
procedures for ELRs, while ensuring that those devices continue to 
perform their important safety function of locking up a seat belt in 
the event of a crash or emergency braking. These amendments to the 
standard apply to seat belt assemblies for use in passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.
    In general, the petitions for reconsideration requested minor 
technical modifications to the ELR provisions of Standard No. 209, the 
most significant of which involved: (1) Modifications to various angle 
tolerances specified in the final rule, e.g., in the acceleration tests 
(requested by the AORC) and the tilt lock requirements (requested by 
all three petitioners), and (2) specification of how to determine the 
point of ELR lock-up (requested by BMW and TAKATA-PETRI). In addition, 
all three petitioners sought clarification that the final rule did not 
overturn the agency's earlier interpretation that Standard No. 209 
requires dual-sensing ELRs (i.e., ELRs equipped with both vehicle 
acceleration-sensitive and webbing-sensitive retractors) to meet the 
requirements of the standard for either type of retractor, not both. 
One petitioner (AORC) also sought correction of certain typographical 
errors identified in the laboratory test procedure for the standard 
(see section IV of this document for a complete discussion of issues 
raised in the petitions and their resolution). We have decided to grant 
the petitions in part and to deny them in part.
    The following points highlight the amendments to Standard No. 209 
that we are adopting in response to the petitions for reconsideration.
     In order to resolve potential interpretation problems that 
could arise in determining ELR lock-up and to maintain an objective and 
repeatable test methodology, this final rule amends the standard's test 
procedures to provide that a belt load measurement of

[[Page 51523]]

35 N or more will indicate ELR lock-up (see S4.3(j)(2)(ii)). This 
approach is consistent with industry practice and is the one utilized 
by the testing laboratories with which the agency contracts for the 
performance of compliance testing.
     This final rule eliminates the  0.5 degree 
tolerances specified for the acceleration requirements for ELRs stated 
in S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A)(2) and S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(B)(2), which ensure 
adequate occupant restraint in the event of a crash. Because those 
provisions require ELRs to meet the standard's requirements over a 
broad range of angles, we have determined that a tight tolerance on 
those angles is unnecessary.

Lead Time and Compliance Date

    In amending Standard No. 209 in response to the petitions for 
reconsideration, the agency has decided to retain the mandatory 
compliance date of February 22, 2007 for the amended ELR provisions, as 
provided in the August 22, 2005 final rule. Voluntary compliance is 
permitted before that date.
    In the August 2005 final rule, we stated our belief that existing 
ELRs will continue to meet the requirements of the standard, even 
though the amendments to the standard's test procedures may result in 
some minor costs to vehicle manufacturers and testing laboratories to 
reconfigure existing test equipment and/or purchase new test equipment. 
However, today's amendments to the standard involve only minor 
technical modifications in terms of how the test is conducted and how 
related results are interpreted. Accordingly, we believe that retention 
of the February 22, 2007 mandatory compliance date will continue to 
permit manufacturers and testing laboratories to comply with the 
standard's amended ELR requirements at minimal cost.

II. Background

    On August 22, 2005, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal 
Register to amend FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, by redefining 
certain requirements and establishing a new test methodology for ELRs. 
That final rule established a new A-T (acceleration-time) corridor, 
added a figure illustrating the new A-T corridor, provided a tolerance 
on angle measurements, and adopted similar instrumentation 
specifications to those currently found in other FMVSSs containing 
dynamic tests. As noted above, the purpose of the amendments to 
Standard No. 209 was to clarify the test procedures for ELRs, while 
ensuring that those devices continue to perform their important safety 
function of locking up a seat belt in the event of a crash or emergency 
braking.
    The following points highlight the key provisions of the August 
2005 final rule.
     The final rule amended FMVSS No. 209 by adopting a 
specific A-T corridor for test pulses that includes an upper boundary 
onset rate of 375 g/sec and that permits an acceleration peak of 0.8 g. 
As amended, the standard sets a lower boundary for the A-T corridor 
with a minimum onset rate of 21.67 g/sec, and it further sets a steady 
state tolerance range of 0.65 g to 0.72 g. This new A-T corridor is 
intended to be sufficiently wide as to allow a range of onset rates to 
be tested that are more representative of real world crashes and 
emergency braking events.
     The final rule modified the dynamic test requirements for 
ELRs so as to specify that each acceleration pulse be recorded using an 
accelerometer having a full-scale range of  10 g and be 
processed according to the practices set forth in Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J211-1 rev. December 2003, 
``Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic 
Instrumentation,'' Channel Frequency Class (CFC) 60. (That SAE standard 
has been incorporated by reference into FMVSS No. 209.) The rule also 
specified that webbing displacement is measured using a displacement 
transducer.
     Unless a range of angles is specified or a tolerance is 
otherwise explicitly provided, the final rule stated that all angles 
and orientations of seat belt assemblies and components specified in 
the standard have a tolerance of  3 degrees.
    In terms of the rule's impacts, the agency anticipated that the 
final rule will not result in substantial changes to the performance of 
ELRs and that current ELRs will continue to comply with FMVSS No. 209 
without the need for change. Additionally, we stated that we expect the 
final rule to clarify the specifications in the standard's test 
procedures. Furthermore, we stated our expectation that the final rule 
will result in only a minimal cost burden to vehicle manufacturers. 
Testing laboratories might need to reconfigure their testing equipment 
or purchase new equipment, but this one-time cost is likely to be 
minimal on a cost-per-vehicle basis.
    Nevertheless, in implementing these amendments to the standard, 
NHTSA provided 18 months of lead time, which we believe is adequate to 
allow vehicle manufacturers and testing laboratories to reconfigure 
their testing equipment or purchase new equipment so as to be 
consistent with the amended standard. Accordingly, manufacturers of 
seat belt assemblies must comply with the requirements of the final 
rule commencing on February 22, 2007. Voluntary compliance is permitted 
prior to the mandatory compliance date.

III. Petitions for Reconsideration

    NHTSA received three petitions for reconsideration submitted in 
response to the August 2005 final rule. One petition for 
reconsideration was submitted by the AORC,\5\ the organization which 
submitted the original petition for rulemaking that resulted in the 
final rule amending the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The AORC is an industry association of 52 suppliers of 
occupant restraints, components/materials, and services to the 
automobile industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other petitions for reconsideration were submitted by BMW, a 
vehicle manufacturer, and TAKATA-PETRI, a supplier of seat belt 
assemblies. We note, however, that the petitions submitted by BMW and 
TAKATA-PETRI are virtually identical. Accordingly, reference to the 
arguments of either of these petitioners may be presumed to apply to 
both petitions in the balance of this document. All of these petitions 
may be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22052.
    The petitioners requested further amendments to FMVSS No. 209 
regarding issues they deemed either inadequately addressed by our 
August 2005 final rule or newly arising therefrom. The following 
discussion provides a general overview of the issues raised in the 
petitions for reconsideration. Specifically, the AORC asked the agency 
to amend the standard by increasing the angle tolerance in the standard 
from  0.5 degrees to  3 degrees for certain 
identified provisions where the ELR is to be rotated into multiple 
positions over a wide range of angles, thereby rendering a tight 
tolerance unnecessary. A wider tolerance in this case would not detract 
from safety and would presumably facilitate ease of testing. The AORC 
also sought clarification as to the applicability of angle tolerances 
to other identified provisions, and it requested correction of certain 
perceived errors in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 209 
(TP-209-06).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/
Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/Associated%20Files/TP-209-06.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the AORC requested that the standard be amended to 
ensure that the result of a 1981 letter of interpretation remains 
valid. In that interpretation, the agency addressed manufacturer 
responsibilities when

[[Page 51524]]

``dual-sensing'' ELRs are installed (i.e., ones utilizing both vehicle-
sensitive and webbing-sensitive designs). The AORC expressed concern 
that the renumbering effected by the final rule would somehow alter the 
principle contained in that letter that manufacturers installing dual-
sensing ELRs need only meet the requirements for one type of ELR, not 
both. (BMW's petition for reconsideration also discussed this issue, 
asking that the regulatory text of the standard be amended to clarify 
the requirements for dual-sensing retractors.)
    BMW (and TAKATA-PETRI) requested that the standard be amended to 
specify a tolerance tighter than  3 degrees for the 
standard's 15-degree no-lock requirement, because it argued that such a 
large tolerance on this ``single-sided'' requirement would not only 
lead to ``nuisance locking,'' but it would also result in unnecessary 
financial costs for manufacturers whose ELRs must comply with both U.S. 
and European regulations. According to BMW, there is currently no ELR 
available that could comply with the requirements of both jurisdictions 
and the  3 degree tolerance.
    Furthermore, according to BMW, the final rule's specification of a 
CFC 60 Filter results in a time shift of the peak value for the 
acceleration vs. time curve, as compared to the raw, unfiltered data. 
Because this time shift could impact a laboratory's ability to 
accurately determine the time of ELR lock-up, BMW recommended that the 
standard be amended to specify that a belt load sensor is to be used to 
determine when lock-up has occurred (i.e., when a belt load of 35 N 
 5 N is registered).
    All of the issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration are 
addressed in further detail in the section immediately below.

IV. Discussion and Analysis

A. Angle Tolerances

1. Acceleration Tests
    The August 2005 final rule provided under paragraph S5.4, 
Tolerances on angles, that ``[u]nless a range of angles is specified or 
a tolerance is otherwise explicitly provided, all angles and 
orientations of seat belt assemblies and components specified in this 
standard shall have a tolerance of  3 degrees.''
    In setting requirements for seat belt assemblies manufactured on or 
after February 22, 2007, the final rule provided specific tolerances 
for dynamic acceleration tests for retractors sensitive to vehicle 
acceleration and for retractors sensitive to webbing withdrawal. 
Specifically, under S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A)(2), for a vehicle-sensitive ELR, 
``[i]f the retractor does not meet the 45-degree tilt-lock requirement 
of S4.3(j)(2)(i)(D), accelerate the retractor in three directions 
normal to each other while the retractor drum's central axis is 
oriented at angles of 45, 90, 135, and 180 degrees  0.5 
degrees from the angle at which it is installed in the vehicle and 
measure webbing payout.'' For a webbing-sensitive ELR, 
S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(B)(2) provides: ``The retractor drum's central axis 
shall be oriented at angles of 45, 90, 135, and 180 degrees  0.5 degrees to the horizontal plane. Accelerate the retractor in 
the direction of the webbing retraction and measure the webbing 
payout.''
    In its petition, the AORC generally welcomed the final rule's 
addition of angle tolerances to portions of the standard's ELR 
requirements that previously contained no tolerances. The AORC 
suggested that angle tolerances provide increased clarity in terms of 
the functional requirements and test procedures for ELRs. However, the 
AORC argued that the  0.5 degree tolerances in 
S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A)(2) and S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(B)(2) are unnecessarily 
narrow.
    The AORC argued that, under both of these provisions, because the 
retractor is rotated into multiple positions, a wide range of angular 
positions is already included as part of these tests, thereby rendering 
a tight  0.5 degree tolerance unnecessary. In other words, 
these provisions provide designated test points that allow the agency 
to ensure that the ELRs function properly over a large range of angles, 
not to determine whether action precisely tied to one key angle occurs. 
Therefore, the AORC petition stated that those provisions of the 
standard should be amended to specify an angle tolerance of  3 degrees. Presumably, a wider tolerance in this case would 
facilitate ease of testing.
    After careful consideration, the agency agrees with the AORC that 
it would be possible to eliminate the  0.5 degree 
tolerances in S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A)(2) and S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(B)(2), 
particularly since such modification would not compromise the relevant 
functional requirements of the standard or have negative safety 
consequences. That is because the retractor is required to meet those 
functional requirements of the standard over a broad range of angles. 
In such case, the multiple test angles specified serve as test points 
within that range, rather than tying the specific angle values to the 
triggering of some critical event. Therefore, after consideration of 
the petitioners' arguments, we have decided that the angle tolerance of 
 0.5 degrees in the provisions in question are unnecessary. 
Accordingly, we have decided to delete the tolerances specified under 
S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A)(2) and S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(B)(2), thereby implicitly 
providing for a default tolerance of  3 degrees under S5.4.

2. Tilt-Lock Requirements

    The August 2005 final rule also set angle tolerances related to the 
tilt-lock requirements for ELRs, and of these, the petitions for 
reconsideration requested amendments to the following angle tolerance 
provisions.
    The following provisions apply to seat belt assemblies manufactured 
before February 22, 2007. Under S4.3(j)(1)(iii), the final rule 
provided that an ELR ``[s]hall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive 
to vehicle acceleration, when the retractor is rotated in any direction 
to any angle of 15[deg] or less from its orientation in the vehicle.'' 
Under S5.2(j)(1)(ii), the final rule stated that an ELR sensitive to 
vehicle acceleration is ``[a]ccelerated in three directions normal to 
each other while the retractor drum's central axis is oriented at 
angles of 45[deg], 90[deg], 135[deg], and 180[deg] from the angle at 
which it is installed in the vehicle, unless the retractor locks by 
gravitational force when tilted in any direction to any angle greater 
than 45[deg] from the angle at which it is installed in the vehicle.''
    The following provisions apply to seat belt assemblies manufactured 
on or after February 22, 2007. Under S4.3(j)(2)(i)(D), the final rule 
provided, ``For a retractor sensitive to vehicle acceleration, [the ELR 
must] lock when tilted at any angle greater than 45 degrees from the 
angle at which it is installed in the vehicle or meet the requirements 
of S4.3(j)(2)(ii).'' Furthermore, under S4.3(j)(2)(i)(E), the final 
rule provided, ``For a retractor sensitive to vehicle acceleration, 
[the ELR must] not lock when the retractor is rotated in any direction 
to any angle of 15 degrees or less from its orientation in the 
vehicle.'' Under S5.2(j)(2)(ii), the final rule stated: ``Gravitational 
locking: For a retractor sensitive to vehicle acceleration, rotate the 
retractor in any direction to an angle greater than 45 degrees from the 
angle at which it is installed in the vehicle. Apply a force to the 
webbing greater than the minimum force measured in S5.2(j)(2)(i) to 
determine compliance with S4.3(j)(2)(i)(D).''
    As noted previously, the petitions for reconsideration submitted by 
the AORC, BMW, and TAKATA-PETRI requested

[[Page 51525]]

that the standard be amended with regard to the provisions discussed 
immediately above. The AORC requested that the agency clarify that the 
default tolerance provision in S5.4 (i.e.,  3 degrees) does 
not apply to these provisions, because the AORC interprets those 
provisions as explicitly stating the permissible angle measurement 
(e.g., ``angle of 15 degrees or less,'' ``angle greater than 45 
degrees'').
    In their petitions, BMW and TAKATA-PETRI argued that a 3-degree 
tolerance for the 15-degree no-lock requirement would result in 
``nuisance locking.'' Furthermore, BMW stated that such a large 
tolerance would also result in unnecessary financial costs for 
manufacturers whose ELRs must comply with both U.S. and European 
regulations. According to BMW, there is currently no ELR available that 
could comply with the requirements of both jurisdictions and the  3 degree tolerance, so manufacturers would be forced to design 
different retractors for the U.S. and European markets without a 
demonstrated safety need. Accordingly, BMW and TAKATA-PETRI requested 
that the standard be amended to specify a tighter tolerance of  0.5 degrees for the standard's 15-degree no-lock requirement, 
rather than the tolerance of  3 degrees currently 
specified.
    In response to the petitioners, we clarify that there are no 
tolerances associated with the tilt-lock requirements specified in 
S4.3(j)(1)(iii), S4.3(j)(2)(i)(D), S4.3(j)(2)(i)(E), S5.2(j)(1)(ii), 
and S5.2(j)(2)(ii). Consistent with paragraph S5.4, Tolerances on 
angles, the standard provides for a tolerance of  3 
degrees, unless a range of angles is specified or a tolerance is 
otherwise specifically provided. The tilt-lock requirements discussed 
above set ranges of angles, including everything above or below a 
specified value (e.g., ``angle of 15 degrees or less,'' ``angle greater 
than 45 degrees''). Because a range of angles is specified, the  3 degree tolerance is not applicable, and therefore, the 
petitioners' concerns regarding ``nuisance locking'' and differences in 
products destined for the U.S. and European markets are not pertinent. 
Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to amend the standard regarding 
this issue.

B. Determination of Lock-Up

    In the August 2005 final rule, the agency stated that we understand 
that there is currently more than one methodology used for determining 
the point of ELR lock-up. Specifically, some laboratories determine 
lock-up through observation of a sudden change in the A-T curve, 
whereas others utilize a 35 N threshold, consistent with industry 
practice.
    In the final rule, we declined to adopt a specific requirement for 
determination of ELR lock-up. We stated that, like the observation of 
change in the A-T curve, the industry load threshold approach is also 
an indirect measurement of lock-up, and we noted that we were not aware 
of any problems associated with either of the existing methods for 
determining ELR lock-up.
    BMW and TAKATA-PETRI petitioned the agency to amend the standard to 
set a specification for determination of ELR lock-up, based upon 
potential problems in determining lock-up when the CFC 60 Filter is 
utilized. As an example, the petitioners provided a graph comparing 
filtered and unfiltered data by plotting the acceleration vs. time 
curve for each. The data provided by the petitioners demonstrated a 
time shift in the accelerometer data, which the petitioners argued 
presents a problem in terms of determining the point of ELR lock-up in 
the absence of specification in the regulation as to how to interpret 
these data when determining lock-up (i.e., defining ``lock-up''). 
Although the petitioners support use of the CFC 60 Filter (which helps 
conform the instrumentation requirements of FMVSS No. 209 to those of 
other FMVSSs with a dynamic performance component), they stated that if 
the testing laboratory uses the filtered peak as the time of ELR lock-
up, the belt webbing payout measured could be erroneous; furthermore, 
the petitioners asserted that it is not clear at what point in the peak 
the laboratory would determine lock-up (onset, absolute peak, or 
descent) and start measuring belt webbing payout.
    BMW and TAKATA-PETRI stated in their petitions for reconsideration 
that, in light of the information presented, this determination of 
lock-up is subjective, and, therefore, not acceptable, and does not 
support the agency's goal of clarifying the current ELR test 
procedures. Therefore, they recommended that the agency amend the 
standard to specify a belt load sensor to be used in the webbing path 
to indicate ELR lock-up. The petitioners recommended that ELR lock-up 
be the point at which the load sensor measures a 35 N  5 N 
belt load. According to the petitioners, this is the best method for 
evaluating ELR locking behavior, because it has a direct correlation to 
real world occupant loading and is consistent with standard industry 
practice.
    After careful consideration, the agency agrees that, based upon the 
supporting data provided by BMW and TAKATA-PETRI, potential 
interpretation problems could arise regarding the determination of ELR 
lock-up, unless additional clarification is provided. In order to 
maintain an objective and repeatable test methodology, we have decided 
to amend the current ELR test procedures in response to the 
petitioners' request. We note that BMW stated that the standard 
industry practice is to use a 35 Newton (N) load as indication that ELR 
lock-up has occurred, and the testing laboratories with which the 
agency contracts to conduct compliance testing have utilized this same 
methodology since 2003.
    Although the petitioners did not provide any data to support their 
view that their recommended test directly correlates to actual occupant 
loading, and even though we continue to believe that this methodology 
is an indirect means of determining ELR lock-up, we nonetheless believe 
that it provides an acceptable means of clarifying the ELR test 
procedures to ensure an objective and consistent determination of lock-
up. Accordingly, we have decided to adopt the petitioners' 
recommendation and amend the standard's test procedures to provide that 
a belt load measurement of 35 N or more will indicate ELR lock-up. 
Although the agency considered various options, such as adopting a 
bilateral tolerance (i.e.,  x N) on the belt load, the 
agency feels that it is more appropriate to establish a minimum belt 
load for determining lock-up, because a minimum belt load provides an 
objective threshold when the ELR transitions from an unlocked state to 
a locked state. As the belt load continues to increase above the 
threshold, the ELR remains locked until the test is completed, so 
therefore, an upper belt load limit is not necessary. We have selected 
35 N as the threshold for determining lock-up because it provides a 
consistent point of demarcation for lock-up and is also the nominal 
value recommended by the petitioners consistent with industry practice.

C. Requirements for Dual-Sensing ELRs

    In addition to the substantive changes to the standard discussed 
above, the amendments adopted by the August 2005 final rule also 
resulted in a renumbering of certain ELR-related provisions in FMVSS 
No. 209, some of which did not change in substance.
    The petitions of the AORC, BMW, and TAKATA-PETRI all requested that 
the agency clarify the responsibilities for manufacturers in terms of 
the standard's requirements for dual-sensing ELRs (i.e., retractors 
that are sensitive to both

[[Page 51526]]

vehicle acceleration and webbing withdrawal). According to the 
petitioners, the agency issued a letter of interpretation dated 
February 19, 1981 to Mr. Frank Pepe \7\ which effectively resolved the 
issue of what requirements would apply to dual-sensing ELRs (stating 
that manufacturers must meet the requirements for either vehicle-
sensitive ELRs or webbing-sensitive ELRs, not both).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/81/nht81-
1.14.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in its petition, the AORC suggested that the agency's 
August 2005 final rule may have added confusion in this area by 
renumbering the relevant provisions of the standard. The AORC argued 
that direct traceability between the 1981 letter of interpretation and 
the relevant provisions of the standard will be lost under the amended 
standard. In order to clarify the requirements for dual-sensing ELRs 
after the final rule's amendments to the standard, the AORC asked the 
agency to provide an explicit statement that manufacturers of dual-
sensing ELRs continue to be required to comply with only one of the 
permitted options (i.e., either vehicle-acceleration-sensitive or 
webbing-withdrawal-sensitive ELRs), but not both. BMW and TAKATA-PETRI 
also addressed this point, although their petitions went a step 
further, asking the agency to clarify this matter by amending the 
standard's regulatory text to incorporate a manufacturer's compliance 
option in the case of dual-sensing ELRs.
    In light of the petitioners' requests, we clarify that our 
renumbering of certain provisions in Standard No. 209 does not impact 
the validity or ongoing effect of our 1981 letter of interpretation. 
Our August 2005 final rule renumbered but did not make any substantive 
modifications to the applicable requirements for dual-sensing ELRs, so 
the interpretation letter to Mr. Pepe remains valid, despite such 
numbering changes. The agency will continue to treat dual-sensing ELRs 
as either vehicle-sensitive or webbing-sensitive retractors. We believe 
that such numbering changes are unlikely to result in any significant 
confusion. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to incorporate 
additional language in the standard, as recommended by BMW and TAKATA-
PETRI.

D. Other Issues

    In its petition for reconsideration, the AORC stated that it 
identified two typographical errors in the laboratory test procedure 
that the agency released concurrently with the final rule on August 22, 
2005 (TP-209-06). Specifically, the AORC argued that a decimal point 
had inadvertently been omitted.
    The agency has already revised TP-209-06 to remedy these errors. 
While we will also make additional modifications to the test procedure 
to reflect the amendments arising from today's final rule responding to 
petitions for reconsideration, we note that issues related to the 
agency's test procedures are not resolved through the rulemaking 
process. Those procedures do not vary from or add to the requirements 
of the FMVSS, but instead provide directions to be followed by the 
laboratories doing compliance testing for the agency. Any concerns 
related to a test procedure should be directed to NHTSA's Office of 
Vehicle Safety Compliance.

V. Benefits and Costs

    Section V of the August 22, 2005 final rule stated that NHTSA did 
not estimate benefits for the rulemaking because we anticipated that it 
would not result in substantial changes to the performance of 
emergency-locking retractors. The final rule stated that it is expected 
that all current ELRs will continue to comply with FMVSS No. 209 
without change under the final rule's amendments. The reason for this 
determination was that the amendments to FMVSS No. 209 in the final 
rule more directly affect test procedure specifications and are 
intended only to clarify the test specifications.
    NHTSA anticipated only minimal cost burden to vehicle manufacturers 
from the final rule. Testing laboratories might have to develop new 
specifications for the instrumentation used to generate the 
acceleration pulses and may be required to obtain the specified 
accelerometer. However, the agency stated that we anticipate that only 
a small number of businesses will need to purchase new equipment as a 
result of the final rule, and for those that do, this would result in a 
one-time, minimal cost to the test laboratory.
    The agency has determined that the technical amendments resulting 
from this final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration will 
not appreciably change the analysis of costs and benefits reported in 
the final rule. Accordingly, the agency has determined that that 
analysis remains valid and that additional analysis is not required.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Vehicle Safety Act

    Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 
et seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for 
prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet 
the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective 
terms.\8\ These motor vehicle safety standards set the minimum level of 
performance for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to be 
considered safe.\9\ When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must 
consider all relevant, available motor vehicle safety information.\10\ 
The Secretary also must consider whether a proposed standard is 
reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of motor vehicle 
or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed and the extent to 
which the standard will further the statutory purpose of reducing 
traffic accidents and associated deaths.\11\ The responsibility for 
promulgation of Federal motor vehicle safety standards has been 
delegated to NHTSA.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
    \9\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).
    \10\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the August 22, 2005 final rule to further clarify the 
test procedures of FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, the agency 
carefully considered the statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 
301. Since that time, the agency received three petitions for 
reconsideration of the final rule, which requested technical 
modifications and corrections to the standard. In this final rule 
responding to petitions for reconsideration, the agency has once again 
carefully considered the statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 
301.
    First, this final rule reflects the agency's careful consideration 
and analysis of all issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration. 
In responding to the issues raised in these petitions, the agency 
considered all relevant motor vehicle safety information. In preparing 
this document, the agency carefully evaluated relevant, available 
research, testing results, and other information related to various ELR 
technologies. In sum, this document reflects our consideration of all 
relevant, available motor vehicle safety information.
    Second, to ensure that the ELR requirements remain practicable, the 
agency evaluated the potential impacts of the petitions' requested 
actions on the form and functionality of currently compliant ELRs, 
consistent with our safety objectives and the statutory requirements. 
We note that ELRs are already required on light vehicles, and

[[Page 51527]]

we believe that it will be practicable to adopt the technical 
modifications to the standard's requirements and test methodology in 
response to the petitions for reconsideration without necessitating 
redesigns on the part of ELR manufacturers. We expect that vehicle 
manufacturers will continue to have a number of technological choices 
available for meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 209 for ELRs. As 
noted above, most of the changes resulting from this final rule involve 
relatively minor modifications. In sum, we believe that this final rule 
responding to petitions for reconsideration is practicable and will 
maintain the benefits of Standard No. 209.
    Third, the regulatory text following this preamble is stated in 
objective terms in order to specify precisely what performance is 
required and how performance will be tested to ensure compliance with 
the standard. Specifically, this final rule makes minor modifications 
to the performance requirements and test procedures for operation of 
the ELRs, in terms of determining when ELR lock-up occurs and by 
modifying certain angle tolerances. The standard's test procedures 
continue to carefully delineate how testing will be conducted. Thus, 
the agency continues to believe that this test procedure is 
sufficiently objective and would not result in uncertainty as to 
whether a given seat belt assembly satisfies the requirements of FMVSS 
No. 209.
    Fourth, we believe that this final rule responding to petitions for 
reconsideration will meet the need for motor vehicle safety by making 
certain modifications that will better define the acceleration pulse 
that will be utilized in testing ELRs, mechanisms which serve the 
critical function of ensuring that seat belts are properly locked up in 
the event of sudden deceleration or a crash.
    Finally, we believe that this final rule responding to petitions 
for reconsideration is reasonable and appropriate for seat belt 
assemblies subject to the applicable requirements. As discussed 
elsewhere in this notice, the agency is addressing the petitioners' 
requests for additional amendments to the standard to better define the 
ELR requirements and test procedures, actions which we do not expect 
will increase the present stringency of the standard or cause 
compliance problems for existing ELRs. Accordingly, we believe that 
this final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration is 
appropriate for the seat belt assemblies in covered vehicles that are 
subject to these provisions of FMVSS No. 209 because it furthers the 
agency's objective of preventing deaths and serious injuries by 
ensuring that ELRs in seat belt assemblies function properly.

B. 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 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:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    The August 22, 2005 final rule was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. Furthermore, that 
rule was not considered to be significant within the meaning of the 
Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 
FR 11034 (February 26, 1979)). In that final rule, we stated that we do 
not expect the amendments to the standard to require substantial 
changes in the performance of ELRs. Testing laboratories might need to 
develop new specifications for the instrumentation used to generate the 
acceleration pulses, but it is not expected to result in more than a 
minimal cost burden for manufacturers.
    We have likewise considered the impact of this final rule 
responding to petitions for reconsideration under Executive Order 12866 
and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. This rulemaking 
document is also not considered to be significant under the Department 
of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The agency has 
estimated that the incremental costs associated with the minor 
technical modifications to the standard resulting from this final rule 
will not appreciably change the costs of compliance with FMVSS No. 209.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates 
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The rationale for this certification is that the present 
final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration only makes 
technical modifications and corrections to the safety standard for seat 
belt assemblies. As discussed in detail in the August 22, 2005 final 
rule's Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis (see section VI.C), we do 
not anticipate that the amendments to FMVSS No. 209 will have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
and nothing in this final rule would change either that assessment or 
its underlying reasoning.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and 
criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and has 
determined that it 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

[[Page 51528]]

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.

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This 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 a suit in 
court.

F. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks)

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, 
health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
    This final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration is not 
subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an economically significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and because it does not 
involve decisions based on environmental, health, or safety risks that 
disproportionately affect children.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (Pub. L. 104-13), 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 responding to petitions for reconsideration 
does not contain any collection of information requirements requiring 
review under the PRA.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the 
agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or is otherwise impractical. 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 Society of Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA directs us to provide 
Congress (through OMB) with explanations when we decide not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The NTTAA does 
not apply to symbols.
    The amendments to Standard No. 209 adopted in the August 2005 final 
rule incorporated voluntary consensus standards promulgated by the 
Society of Automotive Engineers. This final rule responding to 
petitions for reconsideration makes additional, minor technical 
amendments to FMVSS No. 209. Accordingly, this final rule is in 
compliance with Section 12(d) of the NTTAA.

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of 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 for inflation with base year of 
1995 (so currently about $112 million in 2001 dollars)). Before 
promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement is needed, 
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative other than the 
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if 
the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    As was the case with the August 2005 final rule, this final rule 
responding to petitions for reconsideration is not expected to result 
in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $112 million annually. 
Because the present final rule responding to petitions for 
reconsideration only makes technical modifications to the standard, we 
do not believe that this final rule will appreciably change the costs 
of compliance with FMVSS No. 209. Therefore, the agency has not 
prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act.

J. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action 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.

K. Regulatory 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

    Please note that 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.

[[Page 51529]]

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Tires.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR Part 571 as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 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 571.209 is amended by revising S4.3(j)(2)(ii), 
S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A)(2), and S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(B)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  571.209  Standard No. 209; Seat belt assemblies.

* * * * *
    S4.3 Requirements for hardware.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Shall lock before the webbing payout exceeds the maximum limit 
of 25 mm when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7 g 
under the applicable test conditions of S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A) or (B). The 
retractor is determined to be locked when the webbing belt load tension 
is at least 35 N.
* * * * *
    S5.2 Hardware.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) If the retractor does not meet the 45-degree tilt-lock 
requirement of S4.3(j)(2)(i)(D), accelerate the retractor in three 
directions normal to each other while the retractor drum's central axis 
is oriented at angles of 45, 90, 135, and 180 degrees from the angle at 
which it is installed in the vehicle and measure webbing payout.
    (B) * * *
    (2) The retractor drum's central axis is oriented at angles of 45, 
90, 135, and 180 degrees to the horizontal plane. Accelerate the 
retractor in the direction of the webbing retraction and measure the 
webbing payout.
* * * * *

    Issued: August 23, 2006.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-14479 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P