NHTSA's Activities Under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 1998 Global Agreement: Head Restraints, 8743-8744 [E8-2521]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2008 / Notices
• Tier 2 analysis findings on the
bridge facilities and transit elements
from the Tier 1 analysis, approaches and
associated highway network
improvements within the Corridor
associated with the preferred
alternative.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning
and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this
program.)
Jeffrey Kolb, New York Division
Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, Leo W. O’Brien
Building, 7th Floor, Clinton Avenue and
North Pearl Street, Albany, NY 12207.
Brigid Hynes-Cherin, Region II
Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration, One Bowling Green,
Room 429, New York, NY 10004.
Dated: February 6, 2008.
Jeffrey W. Kolb,
New York Division Administrator, Federal
Highway Administration.
Brigid Hynes-Cherin,
Region II Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–2741 Filed 2–13–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0016, Notice 1]
NHTSA’s Activities Under the United
Nations Economic Commission for
Europe 1998 Global Agreement: Head
Restraints
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Request for comments.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NHTSA is publishing this
notice to inform the public that there
may be a vote to adopt the Global
Technical Regulation (GTR) on Head
Restraints at the March 2008 session of
the World Forum for Harmonization of
Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). In
anticipation of this vote, NHTSA is
requesting comments on this GTR to
inform its decision for the vote.
Publication of this information is in
accordance with NHTSA’s Statement of
Policy regarding Agency Policy Goals
and Public Participation in the
Implementation of the 1998 Global
Agreement on Global Technical
Regulations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Feb 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
Written comments may be
submitted to this agency by March 6,
2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
[identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0016, Notice 1] by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Telephone: 1–800–647–5527.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number for this proposed collection of
information. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78) or you may visit https://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions, or visit the Docket
Management Facility at the street
address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Ezana Wondimneh, Chief, International
Policy and Harmonization (NVS–133),
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001; Phone: 202–366–2117, Fax: 202–
493–2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 14, 2004, NHTSA published a
final rule upgrading Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
202, ‘‘Head Restraints.’’ (64 FR 74847)
In upgrading the existing FMVSS,
NHTSA adopted into the FMVSS many
of the requirements which already
existed in the head restraint regulation
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8743
of the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE), and
which provided improved safety over
then existing FMVSS. However, in
instances where opportunities existed to
achieve increased safety in a cost
effective manner or to better enforce our
standard, the agency went beyond or
took an approach different from that in
the UNECE regulation. One important
area in which the FMVSS achieved
increased safety over the current UNECE
regulation was in the addition of a
backset requirement (the distance
between the head restraint and the back
of the head) to reduce whiplash injuries.
In anticipation of these differences
between the FMVSS and the UNECE
regulation, in its October 8, 2004 notice
on the status of NHTSA’s participation
under the 1998 Agreement (69 FR
60460), NHTSA sought comments on
whether the U.S. should sponsor a GTR
on head restraints. NHTSA thought that
a GTR in this area would not be difficult
to achieve given the level of
harmonization that already existed
between the U.S. and UNECE
regulations. In addition, NHTSA
believed that much would be gained
from such an effort worldwide. The GTR
will incorporate the newly adopted
backset requirements from the U.S.
regulation, thus improving safety in
countries that do not have a backset
requirement. The GTR will also
harmonize any remaining differences
between the UNECE regulation and the
FMVSS, creating a common regulatory
framework and paving the way for
future cooperation in the area of rear
impact and whiplash injury reduction.
No comments were received from the
U.S. public objecting to NHTSA’s
sponsorship and pursuit of this GTR.
Many countries participating in the
United Nations’ process under the 1998
Agreement also welcomed the U.S.
leadership. Since whiplash injuries are
not unique to the United States,
countries around the world had strong
incentive to cooperate in order to
address the social and economic
impacts of these injuries.
During the November 2004 meeting of
WP.29, NHTSA gained the approval of
the Executive Committee of the 1998
Global Agreement (AC.3) to begin the
development of a Head Restraints GTR.
The proposal was referred to the
Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP).
In February 2005, the GRSP formed an
informal working group, chaired by the
United States, to develop the GTR.
In developing and drafting the new
GTR, the working group combined
elements from UNECE Regulations Nos.
17 and 25, and the newly upgraded
FMVSS No. 202. The group also
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
8744
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2008 / Notices
reviewed new research which led to the
inclusion of requirements not contained
in the previously mentioned regulations
and discussed areas of further research
which could be addressed in a second
phase to this GTR. In an October 10,
2006 (71 FR 59582) notice, NHTSA
described the interim progress on the
head restraint GTR and sought
comments. NHTSA did not receive
comments. The informal working group
has completed drafting the GTR, and at
the December 2007 session of GRSP the
GTR was recommended to WP.29/AC.3
for a vote at its March 2008 Session.
The U.S. successfully argued for the
inclusion of a backset requirement in
the GTR. The backset requirement and
measurement procedure in the GTR are
as specified in FMVSS No. 202. The
Group of Experts studied and evaluated
the extent to which the choice of
reference point has an impact on the
level of stringency. The two reference
points in question are H-point, which is
the actual hip point of the dummy
sitting in the seat, and the R-point,
which is the theoretical hip point of the
dummy that manufacturers use when
designing a vehicle. The R-point is the
same as the seating reference point
(SgRP) when the seat is set in the
rearmost seating position. Both have
been used in U.S. regulations. Currently,
the FMVSS No. 202 relies on the Hpoint, while the UNECE regulation
relies on the R-point. The group of
experts found that for the backset
measurement, the choice of reference
point does have an impact on
stringency. To that end, they sought to
determine an equivalent limit between
the two reference points. The group
found that requirements with the Rpoint should be 45 mm to provide
equivalent stringency as the 55 mm
requirement when using the H-point.
The GTR provides the flexibility for
contracting parties to decide on the
reference point provided that they make
the necessary adjustments to the
requirements to make them equivalent.
Contracting parties choosing the H-point
requirement will use the 55 mm backset
requirement while those opting for Rpoint will use the 45 mm requirement.
Since H-point and the 55 mm backset
requirement have been established in
the U.S. regulation and it is the
preferred option in the GTR, NHTSA
will continue to require it. However,
with respect to all other measurements,
the group of experts found that the
reference point should not impact
stringency and therefore, it was agreed
that the R-point should be specified in
the GTR. Providing that cost-benefit
analysis confirms that there will be no
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Feb 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
impact on benefits in the U.S., the U.S.
will propose using R-point in its
compliance testing for all measurements
other than backset.
The agency believes that this GTR
will improve the current U.S. regulation
and provide significant benefits in other
countries which adopt this GTR, due to
the backset requirement. This GTR also
harmonizes all existing international
regulations on head restraints, creating
a common regulatory base to which
further harmonized improvements
could be added. The European Union
and Japan have been conducting
extensive research in the area of rear
impact, particularly as it pertains to
more biofidelic anthropomorphic
dummies. WP.29 has already approved
the concept of a Phase 2 for head
restraints to consider this research.
Working from common regulatory
requirements, the U.S. believes there
will be the possibility of preventing
more whiplash injuries in the future,
looking at the seat and the head restraint
as a system.
The GTR is expected to be voted on
at the March 2008 session of WP.29 and
AC.3. In anticipation of this vote,
NHTSA is again requesting comments
on this GTR. Once the GTR is
established through consensus voting at
WP.29, NHTSA will initiate domestic
rulemaking to amend its existing
FMVSS to incorporate approved
provisions of the GTR. This will allow
for further opportunity to consider
comments from interested parties
through the usual rulemaking process. If
NHTSA’s rulemaking process leads it to
either not adopt or to modify aspects of
the GTR, the agency will seek to amend
the GTR in accordance with established
procedures under the 1998 Global
Agreement and WP.29, as it recently did
with the door lock GTR.
Patriot Rail, LLC, Patriot Rail Holdings
LLC, and Patriot Rail Corp.—
Continuance in Control Exemption—
Sacramento Valley Railroad, Inc.
jointly have filed a verified notice of
exemption to continue in control of
Sacramento Valley Railroad, Inc.
(SAVR), upon SAVR’s becoming a Class
III rail carrier.1
This transaction is related to the
concurrently filed verified notice of
exemption in STB Finance Docket No.
35117, Sacramento Valley Railroad,
Inc.—Operation Exemption—McClellan
Business Park LLC. In that proceeding,
SAVR seeks an exemption under 49 CFR
1150.31 to operate 7 miles of unmarked
rail line owned by McClellan Business
Park LLC, in Sacramento County, CA.
The transaction is scheduled to be
consummated on or after March 1, 2008,
and hence after the February 28, 2008
effective date of the exemption.
Patriot currently controls three other
Class III rail carriers: Tennessee
Southern Railroad Company, Rarus
Railroad Company, and Utah Central
Railway Company.
Patriot states that: (1) The rail lines to
be operated by SAVR do not connect
with any other railroads in the Patriot
corporate family; (2) the continuance in
control is not part of a series of
anticipated transactions that would
connect these rail lines with any other
railroad in the Patriot corporate family;
and (3) the transaction does not involve
a Class I rail carrier. Therefore, the
transaction is exempt from the prior
approval requirements of 49 U.S.C.
11323. See 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2).
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board
may not use its exemption authority to
relieve a rail carrier of its statutory
obligation to protect the interests of its
employees. Section 11326(c), however,
does not provide for labor protection for
transactions under section 11324 and
11325 that involve only Class III rail
carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not
impose labor protective conditions here,
because all of the carriers involved are
Class III carriers.
If the verified notice contains false or
misleading information, the exemption
is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)
may be filed at any time. The filing of
a petition to revoke will not
automatically stay the effectiveness of
the exemption. Petitions for stay must
be filed no later than February 21, 2008
(at least 7 days before the exemption
becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all
pleadings, referring to STB Finance
Docket No. 35118, must be filed with
the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E
Patriot Rail, LLC (PRL) and its
subsidiaries, Patriot Rail Holdings LLC
(PRH), and Patriot Rail Corp. (PRC)
(collectively, Patriot), all noncarriers,
1 PRL owns 51% of the equity interests in PRH.
PRH owns 100% of the stock of PRC. By letter filed
on February 6, 2008, Patriot clarifies that SAVR is
directly controlled by PRC.
Issued on: February 5, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8–2521 Filed 2–13–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 35118]
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8743-8744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2521]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0016, Notice 1]
NHTSA's Activities Under the United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe 1998 Global Agreement: Head Restraints
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA is publishing this notice to inform the public that
there may be a vote to adopt the Global Technical Regulation (GTR) on
Head Restraints at the March 2008 session of the World Forum for
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). In anticipation of this
vote, NHTSA is requesting comments on this GTR to inform its decision
for the vote. Publication of this information is in accordance with
NHTSA's Statement of Policy regarding Agency Policy Goals and Public
Participation in the Implementation of the 1998 Global Agreement on
Global Technical Regulations.
DATES: Written comments may be submitted to this agency by March 6,
2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA-
2008-0016, Notice 1] by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone: 1-800-647-
5527.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions, or visit the Docket Management Facility at the
street address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ezana Wondimneh, Chief,
International Policy and Harmonization (NVS-133), National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001; Phone: 202-366-2117, Fax: 202-493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 14, 2004, NHTSA published a
final rule upgrading Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
202, ``Head Restraints.'' (64 FR 74847) In upgrading the existing
FMVSS, NHTSA adopted into the FMVSS many of the requirements which
already existed in the head restraint regulation of the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), and which provided improved
safety over then existing FMVSS. However, in instances where
opportunities existed to achieve increased safety in a cost effective
manner or to better enforce our standard, the agency went beyond or
took an approach different from that in the UNECE regulation. One
important area in which the FMVSS achieved increased safety over the
current UNECE regulation was in the addition of a backset requirement
(the distance between the head restraint and the back of the head) to
reduce whiplash injuries.
In anticipation of these differences between the FMVSS and the
UNECE regulation, in its October 8, 2004 notice on the status of
NHTSA's participation under the 1998 Agreement (69 FR 60460), NHTSA
sought comments on whether the U.S. should sponsor a GTR on head
restraints. NHTSA thought that a GTR in this area would not be
difficult to achieve given the level of harmonization that already
existed between the U.S. and UNECE regulations. In addition, NHTSA
believed that much would be gained from such an effort worldwide. The
GTR will incorporate the newly adopted backset requirements from the
U.S. regulation, thus improving safety in countries that do not have a
backset requirement. The GTR will also harmonize any remaining
differences between the UNECE regulation and the FMVSS, creating a
common regulatory framework and paving the way for future cooperation
in the area of rear impact and whiplash injury reduction. No comments
were received from the U.S. public objecting to NHTSA's sponsorship and
pursuit of this GTR. Many countries participating in the United
Nations' process under the 1998 Agreement also welcomed the U.S.
leadership. Since whiplash injuries are not unique to the United
States, countries around the world had strong incentive to cooperate in
order to address the social and economic impacts of these injuries.
During the November 2004 meeting of WP.29, NHTSA gained the
approval of the Executive Committee of the 1998 Global Agreement (AC.3)
to begin the development of a Head Restraints GTR. The proposal was
referred to the Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP). In February
2005, the GRSP formed an informal working group, chaired by the United
States, to develop the GTR.
In developing and drafting the new GTR, the working group combined
elements from UNECE Regulations Nos. 17 and 25, and the newly upgraded
FMVSS No. 202. The group also
[[Page 8744]]
reviewed new research which led to the inclusion of requirements not
contained in the previously mentioned regulations and discussed areas
of further research which could be addressed in a second phase to this
GTR. In an October 10, 2006 (71 FR 59582) notice, NHTSA described the
interim progress on the head restraint GTR and sought comments. NHTSA
did not receive comments. The informal working group has completed
drafting the GTR, and at the December 2007 session of GRSP the GTR was
recommended to WP.29/AC.3 for a vote at its March 2008 Session.
The U.S. successfully argued for the inclusion of a backset
requirement in the GTR. The backset requirement and measurement
procedure in the GTR are as specified in FMVSS No. 202. The Group of
Experts studied and evaluated the extent to which the choice of
reference point has an impact on the level of stringency. The two
reference points in question are H-point, which is the actual hip point
of the dummy sitting in the seat, and the R-point, which is the
theoretical hip point of the dummy that manufacturers use when
designing a vehicle. The R-point is the same as the seating reference
point (SgRP) when the seat is set in the rearmost seating position.
Both have been used in U.S. regulations. Currently, the FMVSS No. 202
relies on the H-point, while the UNECE regulation relies on the R-
point. The group of experts found that for the backset measurement, the
choice of reference point does have an impact on stringency. To that
end, they sought to determine an equivalent limit between the two
reference points. The group found that requirements with the R-point
should be 45 mm to provide equivalent stringency as the 55 mm
requirement when using the H-point. The GTR provides the flexibility
for contracting parties to decide on the reference point provided that
they make the necessary adjustments to the requirements to make them
equivalent. Contracting parties choosing the H-point requirement will
use the 55 mm backset requirement while those opting for R-point will
use the 45 mm requirement. Since H-point and the 55 mm backset
requirement have been established in the U.S. regulation and it is the
preferred option in the GTR, NHTSA will continue to require it.
However, with respect to all other measurements, the group of experts
found that the reference point should not impact stringency and
therefore, it was agreed that the R-point should be specified in the
GTR. Providing that cost-benefit analysis confirms that there will be
no impact on benefits in the U.S., the U.S. will propose using R-point
in its compliance testing for all measurements other than backset.
The agency believes that this GTR will improve the current U.S.
regulation and provide significant benefits in other countries which
adopt this GTR, due to the backset requirement. This GTR also
harmonizes all existing international regulations on head restraints,
creating a common regulatory base to which further harmonized
improvements could be added. The European Union and Japan have been
conducting extensive research in the area of rear impact, particularly
as it pertains to more biofidelic anthropomorphic dummies. WP.29 has
already approved the concept of a Phase 2 for head restraints to
consider this research. Working from common regulatory requirements,
the U.S. believes there will be the possibility of preventing more
whiplash injuries in the future, looking at the seat and the head
restraint as a system.
The GTR is expected to be voted on at the March 2008 session of
WP.29 and AC.3. In anticipation of this vote, NHTSA is again requesting
comments on this GTR. Once the GTR is established through consensus
voting at WP.29, NHTSA will initiate domestic rulemaking to amend its
existing FMVSS to incorporate approved provisions of the GTR. This will
allow for further opportunity to consider comments from interested
parties through the usual rulemaking process. If NHTSA's rulemaking
process leads it to either not adopt or to modify aspects of the GTR,
the agency will seek to amend the GTR in accordance with established
procedures under the 1998 Global Agreement and WP.29, as it recently
did with the door lock GTR.
Issued on: February 5, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-2521 Filed 2-13-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P