Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; Incorporation by Reference, 19155-19164 [2012-7623]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19155-19164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7623]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0036]
RIN 2127-AL05


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assembly 
Anchorages; Incorporation by Reference

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages,'' to specify a new 
force application device for use as a testing interface to transfer 
loads onto the seat belt anchorage system during compliance tests of 
anchorage strength. The device represents a human torso and pelvis. The 
new device comes in two sizes, one representative of a mid-size adult 
male, and the other of a small occupant. We propose both sizes be used 
in FMVSS No. 210. We believe that the devices provide a consistent test 
configuration and load path to the seat belt assembly anchorages. We 
are proposing this amendment because the devices are significantly 
easier to use than the current body blocks.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in 
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern 
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the 
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Ms. Carla Rush, 
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 
(telephone 202-366-4583, fax 202-493-2739).
    For legal issues: Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-2992, fax: 202-366-3820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. FMVSS No. 210
II. Proposed New Force Application Device
    a. FAD1 and FAD2
    b. Positioning the FAD
    c. Drawing Package
III. Data From Use of the FADs
    a. Consistent Positioning of the FADs on a Vehicle Seat
    b. Repeatability of Force Measurement
    c. Vehicle Tests
    1. FADs Do Not Appear To Affect the Stringency of the Test
    2. FADs Appear To Offer Advantages
IV. Lead Time
V. Miscellaneous Issues
    a. Metric Units
    b. Note--Testing Motorcoach Seat Belt Anchorages
    c. Note--Figure 3 in FMVSS No. 210
    d. Note--Side-Facing Seats Correction
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VII. Public Participation

I. FMVSS No. 210

    FMVSS No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages,'' applies to 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and 
buses. The standard establishes requirements for seat belt assembly 
anchorages to ensure the anchorages are properly located for effective 
occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. As to 
the latter, the standard requires seat belt anchorages to withstand 
specified forces to increase the likelihood that the belts will remain 
attached to the vehicle structure in a crash. Under the standard, seat 
belt anchorage assemblies for lap/shoulder belts must withstand a 
13,345 Newton (N) (3,000 pounds (lb)) force applied to the lap belt 
portion of the seat belt assembly simultaneously with a 13,345 N force 
applied to the shoulder belt portion of the seat belt assembly. The 
anchorage assemblies must withstand the force as it is increased over 
thirty seconds, and withstand that force as it is held for 10 
seconds.\1\ These forces are applied to the shoulder portion of the 
belt (for a lap/shoulder belt) by an upper torso body block (Figure 3 
in FMVSS No. 210) and the lap belt portion of the belt by a pelvic body 
block \2\ (Figures 2A and 2B in

[[Page 19156]]

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

    \1\ For lap belt only anchorages, the seat belt anchorage must 
withstand force as it is increased to 22,241 N (5,000 pounds) over 
thirty seconds and withstand that force as it is held for 10 
seconds.
    \2\ The particular pelvic body block used depends on the type of 
seat. Typically the body block in Figure 2A of FMVSS No. 210 is 
used. The Figure 2B body block of FMVSS No. 210 is optionally used 
for center seating positions. The FMVSS No. 222 Figure 2 body block 
is only used for school buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (kg) 
(10,000 pounds) or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed New Force Application Device

    We propose to amend FMVSS No. 210 to reference a new ``force 
application device'' (FAD), which would replace the pelvic body block 
for all belt types and the upper torso body block for lap/shoulder 
belts. The FAD consists of an upper torso portion and a pelvic portion 
hinged together to form a one-piece device, and is available in two 
sizes (see Figures 5 and 6 in the proposed regulatory text). We propose 
both sizes be incorporated into the FMVSS No. 210 test procedure.

a. FAD1 and FAD2

    The two different size versions of the FADs are called FAD1 and 
FAD2. We estimate the cost of each FAD (both the FAD1 and FAD2) to be 
approximately $8,000.
    The external dimensions of the FAD1 are based on digital data \3\ 
developed by the University of Michigan Transportation Research 
Institute (UMTRI) as a representation of the 50th percentile adult 
male. The FAD1, which weighs 55.8 kg (123 lb), replicates the torso and 
lap portions of what UMTRI calls the ``Golden Shell'' and reproduces 
the seat belt angles produced when a seat belt is fastened around a 
50th percentile adult male. We believe that the FAD1 and FAD2 provide a 
consistent test configuration and load path to the seat belt assembly 
anchorages. A detailed description of the FAD can be found in a 
technical report prepared for the agency (``Final Report: Development 
of a Combination Upper Torso and Pelvic Body Block for FMVSS 210 Test, 
Revision A,'' May 22, 2003, KARCO Engineering, LLC), a copy of which 
has been placed in the docket for this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NHTSA developed the specifications for the FAD2, the smaller 
version of the force application device, to use at designated seating 
positions (DSPs) that are too narrow in width to accommodate the FAD1, 
such as some rear center seats in passenger cars and MPVs. In addition 
to enabling the testing of the seat belt assembly anchorages of 
smaller-width DSPs, the FAD2 also would ensure that the test simulates 
parameters (e.g., belt angle and placement) that are consistent with a 
smaller person sitting in the seat.
    The table below summarizes the dimensions of the FAD1 and the FAD2, 
and, for comparison purposes, the dimensions of the Hybrid III (HIII) 
test dummies representing the 50th percentile adult male, 10-year-old 
child, and the 5th percentile adult female.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     HIII 5th
                                       FAD1       HIII 50th Male       FAD2        HIII 10-year-    percentile
                                                                                     old child        female
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight (lb/kg)*.................    123.00/55.79    171.30/77.70     47.50/27.55     77.60/35.20       108/48.99
Shoulder Pivot Height (in/             18.50/470        20.2/513       12.38/314       15.55/395        17.5/445
 millimeters (mm))..............
Shoulder Breadth (in/mm)........       17.73/450       16.90/429       11.97/304       12.40/315        14.1/358
Hip Breadth (in/mm).............       13.97/355        14.3/363        9.43/240       10.40/264        12.1/307
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* There is a weight difference in part because the FADs do not have arms, legs, or a head.

    As to when the agency would use the FAD1 versus the FAD2 to test 
the seat belt anchorages, NHTSA proposes the following. The agency 
would, in the first instance, attempt to fit the FAD1 in the DSP to 
test the seat belt assembly anchorages, using the procedure described 
in the next section below. For tests conducted in accordance with 
S4.2.4 of FMVSS No. 210 (simultaneous testing of adjacent DSP 
anchorages),\4\ if after the FAD1 devices are installed, but prior to 
conducting the test, there is contact between the FAD1s (or if there is 
contact between the FAD1s that prevent them from fitting side-by-side), 
an inboard FAD1 would be replaced with a FAD2. If there is still 
contact between the FADs, and if there is another inboard DSP, an 
additional inboard FAD1 would be replaced with a FAD2, and so on. If 
the contact continues with all inboard DSPs with FAD2s, the FAD1 in the 
non-driver side outboard DSP would be replaced with a FAD2. If there is 
still contact between the FADs, the FAD1 in the driver side outboard 
DSP would be replaced with a FAD2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Briefly stated, S4.2.4 specifies that anchorages, attachment 
hardware, and attachment bolts shall be tested by simultaneously 
loading them if: (a) The DSPs are common to the same occupant seat 
and face the same direction, or (b) the DSPs are not common to the 
same occupant seat, but a DSP has an anchorage that is within 305 mm 
of an anchorage for one of the adjacent DSPs, provided that the 
adjacent seats face in the same direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are requested on this procedure.

b. Positioning the FAD

    The regulatory text of FMVSS No. 210 would specify how the FADs 
would be positioned on a vehicle seat at the outset of the strength 
test.\5\ Generally, the seat back would be at the manufacturer's design 
seat back angle, and the seat in its rearmost and lowest position. The 
FAD would be placed so that its midsagittal plane is vertical and 
aligned with the longitudinal centerline of the seat back. Prior to the 
application of forces described in S5 of FMVSS No. 210, the FAD is set 
up such that the pelvis portion of the FAD rests on the seat and makes 
contact with the seat back. Holding the pelvis portion in place, the 
technician positions the torso portion of the FAD in contact with the 
seat back. The technician would place the lap belt over the lap portion 
of the pelvis, and if applicable, the shoulder belt across the FAD's 
torso portion. Once the FAD is in place, the technician would remove 
enough slack such that the seat belt is snug \6\ against the FAD, and 
would ensure that the seat belt is locked in this position. The 
technician would then attach the device used to

[[Page 19157]]

apply the requisite load(s), and apply the load(s) in the manner 
described in S5 of the standard. (The May 22, 2003 docketed test report 
illustrates a typical pull test set-up.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the 1990s, NHTSA did not prevail in an enforcement action 
brought against a manufacturer for an apparent noncompliance with 
FMVSS No. 210. In the test, NHTSA positioned the pelvic body block 
away from the rear seat back, believing that positioning the body 
block in this manner was within the test parameters of the standard. 
The manufacturer argued that its vehicle met FMVSS No. 210 when 
tested with the body block placed against the seat back, and that 
NHTSA's placement of the pelvic body block forward of the seat back 
was not required by FMVSS No. 210. Ultimately, the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined that NHTSA 
failed to provide adequate notice about the correct placement of the 
pelvic body block, i.e., that it could be placed forward of the seat 
back. United States v. Chrysler Corporation. 158 F.3rd 1350 (DC Cir. 
1998).
    \6\ ``Snug'' refers to when enough slack is removed from the 
seat belt(s) such that a 31.75 mm (1\1/4\ inch) diameter wooden rod 
will not pass between the FAD and the belt with a maximum force of 
2.22 N (0.5 lb-force) exerted tangent to the FAD shoulder or lap 
belt interface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the regulatory text proposed 
today provides a clear explanation of how the agency will position the 
FADs in FMVSS No. 210 compliance tests and that following that text 
will result in consistent positioning of the FADs. NHTSA requests 
comments on whether and how the proposed text could be improved to 
provide clearer information on how the FADs would be positioned and how 
the FMVSS No. 210 test would be conducted.

c. Drawing Package

    The FAD1 and the FAD2 each consist of component assemblies 
specified in approximately 32 drawings that we have docketed. We 
believe that the drawing package is sufficiently detailed to allow 
manufacturers to fabricate the FAD1 and FAD2. During development of 
this NPRM, we compared a FAD1 and FAD2 manufactured by Denton ATD using 
the drawing package to a FAD1 and a FAD2 that pre-existed the drawing 
package. NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center dimensionally 
inspected the FADs manufactured according to the drawings and the 
preexisting FADs.\7\ Based upon this inspection, the agency determined 
that the devices were sufficiently equivalent. From this evaluation, we 
tentatively conclude that the drawing package is sufficient to allow 
consistent fabrication of the FAD1 and FAD2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

III. Data From Use of the FADs

a. Consistent Positioning of the FADs on a Vehicle Seat

    Test data indicate that the FADs can be positioned on a vehicle 
seat in a repeatable manner. In an assessment of the FADs during 
development of the devices, different test technicians positioned the 
FAD1 and FAD2 three times in the following nine vehicles: The model 
year (MY) 2002 Buick LeSabre, MY 2002 Toyota MR-2, MY 1995 Plymouth 
Neon, MY 1995 Toyota Previa, MY 2000 Chevrolet S-10, MY 2002 Chevrolet 
TrailBlazer, MY 2003 Volkswagen Jetta, MY 1996 Ford F-350 (U-Haul), and 
MY 1992 Dodge Ram 350. The technicians were provided a written copy of 
the seating procedure and no additional instructions. Once each 
technician had seated a FAD in a test vehicle, a Faro Arm \8\ was used 
to record the precise location of three predetermined points on the FAD 
relative to a fixed point on the test vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The results from each technician were compared. On average, the 
technicians were able to place a FAD in a specific test vehicle so that 
the predetermined measuring points were within 6.35 mm (\1/4\ inch) of 
the same point, on the same FAD, in the same test vehicle, placed by 
the other technicians. (See ``Final Report: Development of a 
Combination Upper Torso and Pelvic Body Block for FMVSS 210 Test, 
Revision A,'' supra.) We tentatively conclude that a 6.35 mm (\1/4\ 
inch) variability in seating the FAD is acceptable. In comparison, 
FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' at S10.4.2.1, specifies a 
12.7 mm (\1/2\ inch) tolerance for the H-point.\9\ A 6.35 mm (\1/4\ 
inch) variability in seating the FAD is well within the same range of 
tolerance as specified in FMVSS No. 208 for positioning the H-point. 
This is even more compelling considering the technicians performing the 
FAD test were unaccustomed to the seating procedure, and that the 
results were based on the comparison of three points of the FAD 
surface, not just one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

b. Repeatability of Force Measurement

    Test data indicates that in tests with the FADs, comparable forces 
would be measured, within specified tolerances, from tests of a given 
seat belt anchorage during repeated trials on the same vehicle body 
design. Our assessment is based on results of four tests conducted to 
assess the repeatability of the FAD1 test device. The test 
configuration was set up in a generic configuration to minimize 
variability. Anchorage load cells were mounted to a rigid test rig, the 
vehicle seat was replaced with a rigid seat, and the seat belt webbing 
was replaced with high strength webbing.
    In each test, the FAD1 was positioned, belted, and pulled per the 
proposed FMVSS No. 210 test procedure. A statistical analysis was 
performed on both the peak force values as well as time-based metrics. 
The coefficient of variance (CV) was used to assess the variability of 
the peak values for each data channel in order to determine the 
repeatability of the test results and to rate the channels based on an 
established CV acceptance criteria. The analysis of these tests can be 
found in a NHTSA Technical Report, ``Repeatability Analysis of the 
Force Applied to Safety Belt Anchors Using the Force Application Device 
(May 2009),'' a copy of which is in the docket for this NPRM.
    The results indicated that all data channels, except two, were 
rated ``excellent.'' Of the two, one data channel was rated ``good'' 
and another was rated ``acceptable.'' To model statistically the output 
of the entire system over different tests conducted at different points 
in time, a general linear model (GLM) and a mixed model were used. The 
GLM produced a time-based p-value of 0.98, which means that there was 
no statistically significant difference over tests 1 through 4 for the 
four repeated measures while considering all the data channels. 
Similarly, there was no statistically significant interaction between 
the test number and the data channels. This is shown with a p-value of 
0.95. These results showed that the repeated force plots of the various 
channels had similar trends. The mixed model results were similar to 
the GLM and similarly showed that the four tests were repeatable and 
consistent over time.
    Overall, the test procedure using the FAD1 was demonstrated to be 
repeatable, with fourteen force channels meeting the ``excellent'' 
criteria, one channel meeting the ``good'' criteria and one channel 
meeting the ``acceptable'' criteria. The one ``acceptable'' data 
channel (retractor Y-axis) had a large measurement error relative to 
the other channels as seen by the ``acceptable'' coefficient of 
variation. However, the scale of the mean value, around 889.64 N (200 
pounds), is relatively small compared to the 13,345 N (3,000 pound) 
belt load, thus the greater measurement error has a minor effect on the 
overall test results. Both the GLM and the mixed model method showed 
that there are no statistically significant correlations between the 
test number and the data channel and that the repeated force values of 
various channels share similar trends.
    The agency has no reason to believe that similar results would not 
be achieved with the FAD2.

c. Vehicle Tests

1. FADs Do Not Appear To Affect the Stringency of the Test
    We believe that using the FADs would not affect a vehicle's 
performance under FMVSS No. 210. That is, use of the FADs would not 
affect the stringency of the strength test, and would not affect the 
likelihood of a vehicle's meeting or not meeting the standard's 
strength requirements.

[[Page 19158]]

    NHTSA tested nine vehicles with the FAD1, FAD2, and current FMVSS 
No. 210 body blocks in adjacent seating positions installed in the 
vehicles shown in Table 2 below. The FAD1 was in the left seat, the 
FAD2 was in the center seat, and the current upper torso and pelvic 
body blocks were on the right seat. (Each of the nine indicant Test 
Reports are in the docket for this NPRM.) Vehicles that met FMVSS No. 
210's strength requirements using the current body blocks also met 
those strength requirements using the FADs.

                      Table 2--Nine Indicant Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         FMVSS No. 210 test results
                                   -------------------------------------
   Vehicle year, make, and model      w/Current body
                                          blocks        w/FAD1 and FAD2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 VW Passat....................  Pass.............  Pass.
2005 Acura RL.....................  Pass.............  Pass.
2005 Toyota Avalon................  Pass.............  Pass.
2005 Buick Lacrosse...............  Pass.............  Pass.
2005 Chrysler 300.................  Pass.............  Pass.
2005 Chevy Express 11 Passenger     Pass.............  Pass.
 Van.
2005 Chrysler Town and Country      Pass.............  Pass.
 Mini Van with Stow N' Go seating.
2005 Ford F-150 Super Crew Cab      Pass.............  Pass.
 Pick-up Truck.
2005 Chevy Aveo...................  Pass.............  Pass.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. FADs Appear To Offer Advantages
    During the vehicle test program, it appeared that there are several 
advantages to testing with the FADs as compared to testing with the 
current body blocks, in addition to the factor, discussed above, that 
the FADs are more representative of a human form than the upper torso 
and pelvic body blocks.
    As noted in the docketed test reports, an advantage to the FAD 
geometry is that it does not put an unrealistic bending force on the 
belt buckle, unlike the pelvic body block. Also, the FADs lack the 
sharp edges of the pelvic body block, which reduces the likelihood of 
seat belt buckle breakage during testing. (See docketed test reports.) 
Buckle breakage occurs sometimes with the pelvic body block, which 
results in replacing the seat belt with steel cable, as allowed by the 
standard.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ S5 of the standard specifies that, when testing the 
anchorage, the anchorage is connected to material whose breaking 
strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the 
webbing for the seat assembly installed as original equipment at 
that seating position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also noted that, due to the range of motion associated with 
the current body blocks (which can move independently of each other), 
there can be excessive spooling out of seat belt webbing during an 
FMVSS No. 210 test, to the point where the hydraulic rams can reach 
their full stroke during a test before a requisite force level is 
reached. When the hydraulic rams reach their full stroke before the 
test is completed, the test must be stopped so the rams can be re-
hooked for the test to continue. The proposed FADs provide a more 
realistic range of motion because they are shaped like a human, with 
the upper torso portion hinged to the pelvic portion. The two parts 
cannot move as independently of each other as can the current FMVSS No. 
210 body blocks. The FADs do not result in as much seat belt spool-out 
as seen with the current body blocks and thereby eliminate the problem 
of bottoming-out the hydraulic cylinders during the test.
    Another noteworthy advantage of the proposed FADs over the current 
FMVSS No. 210 body blocks is that the FADs necessitate significantly 
less effort and time to install in a test vehicle. A FAD can be 
installed in a vehicle seat in less than 5 minutes, while the current 
body blocks typically necessitate over 10 minutes.\11\ This estimated 
reduction in time results from the ease-of-use of the FADs; they 
required only one attempt for installation in our tests. In contrast, 
for the current body blocks, typically numerous attempts at positioning 
are necessary because the upper torso block often falls out of position 
during set-up and needs to be re-installed. A test of a common seat 
with three designated seating positions can be as much as 20 minutes 
shorter when using the FADs versus when using the current body blocks, 
which can be associated with decreased labor costs, and ultimately, a 
decrease in the total cost of the test. Furthermore, the current body 
blocks need two technicians for installation, while the FADs can be 
installed by one technician.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Karco Engineering, LLC ``Final Report: Development of a 
Combination Upper Torso and Pelvic Body Block for FMVSS 210 Test, 
Revision A,'' supra, at page 28.
    \12\ Assuming the use of one technician at a pay rate of $75 per 
hour and a savings of 5 minutes per seat installation, we estimate 
that using the FADs to test a vehicle may result in a total labor 
cost savings of $93.75 (or $18.75 per seating position), as compared 
to tests of the vehicle using the current body blocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons provided above, we propose to amend FMVSS No. 210 
to incorporate the FAD1 and FAD2 into the standard in place of the 
upper torso and pelvic body blocks.

IV. Lead Time

    The proposed effective date (the date that the text of FMVSS No. 
210 would be revised in the Code of Federal Regulations) is 180 days 
after date of publication of the final rule.
    The proposed compliance date for testing with the FADs would be 
three years from the date of publication of the final rule. The agency 
would use the FADs to test vehicles manufactured on or after the first 
September 1st that is three years from the date of publication of the 
final rule. We have tentatively determined that three years is 
sufficient time for manufacturers to procure the FADs and test their 
vehicles' seat belt anchorages with the FADs. Optional early compliance 
would be permitted.
    Comment is sought on the proposed lead time.

V. Miscellaneous Issues

a. Metric Units

    There are English and metric units used in FMVSS No. 210. At 
present, force measurements in the introductory sentence of S4.2.1 and 
in the introductory sentence of S4.2.2 are in pounds (5,000 pounds in 
S4.2.1 and 3,000 pounds in S4.2.2). The preferred method of measurement 
in the FMVSSs is the metric system. To reflect the preference for the 
metric system and to promote consistency throughout FMVSS

[[Page 19159]]

No. 210, these measurements specified in pounds are proposed to be 
specified in Newtons (N). Therefore, for S4.2.1, we propose to specify 
the force as ``22,241 N (5,000 pounds)'' and for S4.2.2, we propose to 
specify the force as ``13,345 N (3,000 pounds).''

b. Note--Testing Motorcoach Seat Belt Anchorages

    In 2010, NHTSA published an NPRM that, among other matters, 
proposed to require passenger seat belts on motorcoaches (75 FR 50958; 
August 18, 2010; Docket NHTSA-2010-0112). Today's NPRM would amend 
FMVSS No. 210 as applied to all vehicles subject to the standard, 
including motorcoaches. If the proposal is adopted, the FAD1 and FAD2 
would be used instead of the current upper torso and pelvic body blocks 
to test seat belt anchorages on motorcoaches manufactured on or after 
the compliance date of the standard.

c. Note--Figure 3 in FMVSS No. 210

    For clarification purposes, we would like to point out that, even 
if we adopt the FADs in a final rule, there would still be a need for 
the upper torso block shown in Figure 3 of FMVSS No. 210. The upper 
torso body block depicted in Figure 3 is currently referenced in S5.1.6 
of FMVSS No. 222 for use in testing school bus seats to that standard's 
quasi-static test requirements. The quasi-static test requirements help 
ensure that seat backs incorporating lap/shoulder belts are strong 
enough to withstand the forward pull of the torso belts in a crash and 
the forces imposed on the seat from unbelted passengers to the rear of 
the belted occupants. NHTSA would continue to use the (Figure 3) torso 
body block in FMVSS No. 222's quasi-static test. (If the FADs are 
adopted, the school bus seat belt anchorages would be tested under 
FMVSS No. 210 with the FADs.)

d. Note--Side-Facing Seats Correction

    The regulatory text in this NPRM sets forth S4.2 without the clause 
``except for side-facing seats,'' which appears several times in 
current S4.2. These clauses were made obsolete by an October 8, 2008 
final rule \13\ which announced our decision to eliminate the exclusion 
of side-facing seats (and thus apply S4.2's strength requirements to 
side-facing seats) but which failed to amend S4.2 to reflect this 
change. A correcting amendment removing the clauses from S4.2 will be 
issued by the agency. In the meantime, today's document shows S4.2 in 
corrected form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action 
under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking was not reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking action has also been determined 
to be not significant under the Department's regulatory policies and 
procedures.
    We estimate the cost of each FAD, both the FAD1 and FAD2, to be 
approximately $8,000 each. Assuming a vehicle manufacturer or testing 
facility purchases a set of two FAD1s and three FAD2s, the principal 
cost associated with this NPRM is the one-time \14\ purchase cost of 
the set, totaling $40,000. As discussed above, the FADs require 
significantly less effort, time and personnel to install in the test 
vehicle. Thus, we believe there would be associated cost savings which 
could off-set the purchase cost of the FADs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Given that the materials that compose the new FADs are 
polyurethane castings with aluminum structural components and the 
peripheral attachments are aluminum and steel, we do not expect them 
to experience any appreciable wear as a result of the FMVSS No. 210 
testing and, therefore, we believe that the FADs will have a long 
service life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAD2 is smaller than the FAD1 and would enable NHTSA to test 
belt anchorages at DSPs that do not fit the latter device. However, 
additional safety benefits accruing beyond those already attributable 
to FMVSS No. 210 cannot be quantified.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, requires 
agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final 
rules on small businesses, small organizations and small governmental 
jurisdictions. I hereby certify that this proposed rule, if made final, 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Small organizations and small governmental units would 
not be significantly affected since the potential cost impacts 
associated with this action would not significantly affect the price of 
new motor vehicles.
    The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) size standard 
regulation at 13 CFR part 121, ``Small business size regulations,'' 
prescribes small business size standards by North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) codes. NAICS code 336111, Automobile 
Manufacturing prescribes a small business size standard of 1,000 or 
fewer employees. NAICS code 336399, All Other Motor Vehicle Parts 
Manufacturing, prescribes a small business size standard of 750 or 
fewer employees.
    The majority of motor vehicle manufacturers would not qualify as a 
small business. There are a number of vehicle manufacturers that are 
small businesses. We anticipate that these small businesses will not 
directly incur the costs of purchasing the FADs to be used in FMVSS No. 
210. However, if these small businesses perform their own FMVSS No. 210 
testing or purchase testing services for FMVSS No. 210 compliance, they 
will benefit from the easier-to-use FADs and the lower labor costs 
based on the ease of using the FADs, compared to the existing pelvic 
body blocks. For these reasons, if this proposed rule is made final, 
NHTSA does not anticipate a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small businesses.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive 
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no 
additional consultation with States, local governments or their 
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency 
has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or 
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed 
rule would not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: 
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a 
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue 
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is 
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 
Sec.  30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that 
preempts

[[Page 19160]]

any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing 
the same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a 
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety 
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from 
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this 
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle 
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express 
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme 
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied 
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of 
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that 
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual 
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would 
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone 
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer, 
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. 
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum 
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose 
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be 
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for 
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum 
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly 
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered 
whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law 
causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion 
regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the 
likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort 
litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language 
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's 
proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules, 
would prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not 
intend that this proposed rule would preempt state tort law that would 
effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers 
than that established by today's proposed rule. Establishment of a 
higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the 
minimum standard proposed here. Without any conflict, there could not 
be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year 
of 1995). UMRA also requires an agency issuing a final rule subject to 
the Act to select the ``least costly, most cost-effective or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.'' If 
made final, this proposed rule would not result in a Federal mandate 
that would likely result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year 
of 1995).

E. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every 
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies 
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting 
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the 
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive 
effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further 
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for 
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they 
may file suit in court.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the PRA of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a 
collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection 
displays a valid OMB control number. In this notice of proposed 
rulemaking, we are not proposing any ``collections of information'' (as 
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)).

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA)(Public Law 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall 
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means 
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies 
and departments. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 
The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The agency identified an ISO standard (TR 1417-1974) and an SAE 
standard (J384, Rev. JUN94) that have testing recommendations for seat 
belt anchorages. Both standards recommend the use of body blocks, 
similar to those currently specified in FMVSS No. 210, for applying the 
required test loads. As noted in the preamble, there are advantages to 
the proposed FADs over the current FMVSS No. 210 body blocks, including 
that the FADs require significantly less effort and time to install in 
a test vehicle. Accordingly, we have decided to propose using the FADs 
in FMVSS No. 210, rather than the body blocks used in the ISO and SAE 
standards.
    Consistent with the Act's goal of eliminating the agency's cost of 
developing its own standards, NHTSA has based the external dimensions 
of the FAD1 on the ``Golden Shell'' digital data developed by UMTRI as 
a representation of the 50th percentile male. By so doing, the agency 
is saving resources by making use of pertinent

[[Page 19161]]

technical information that is already available.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us 
with your views.

VII. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to the Docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging into https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for 
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet 
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data 
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the 
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed 
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing 
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that 
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on 
the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 571 as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.5 by adding paragraph (j)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  571.5  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (5) ``Drawing Package for the Force Application Device (FAD) FAD1 
and FAD2,'' June 6, 2006, into Sec.  571.210.
* * * * *
    3. Section 571.210 is amended by: adding to S3, in alphabetical 
order, the definitions of ``actuator,'' ``bridged pull yoke,'' 
``FAD1,'' ``FAD2,'' ``longitudinal centerline,'' and ``seat 
centerline''; by revising S4.2.1 and S4.2.2; by adding S5.3, S5.4 and 
S7, and by adding Figures 5 and 6, to read as follows:


Sec.  571.210  Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.

* * * * *
    S3. Definitions.
    Actuator means the device used to apply the load in performing 
testing according to the procedures described in S5 and S7 of this 
standard.
    Bridged pull yoke means the yoke that bridges the torso and pelvis 
on the FAD1 or FAD2.
    FAD1 means a force application device specified in drawings NHTSA-
210-12J-A, ``Drawing Package for the Force Application Device (FAD) 
FAD1 and FAD2,'' June 6, 2006 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
571.5). (FAD1 is depicted in Figure 5 (figure provided for illustration 
purposes).)
    FAD2 means a force application device that is smaller than FAD1, 
specified in drawings NHTSA-210-12J-B, ``Drawing Package for the Force 
Application Device (FAD) FAD1 and FAD2,'' June 6, 2006 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  571.5). (FAD2 is depicted in Figure 6 (figure 
provided for illustration purposes).)
    Longitudinal centerline of a forward and rear-facing seat refers to 
the line formed by the intersection of the seating surface and the 
vertical plane that

[[Page 19162]]

passes through the ``seating reference point'' (as defined at 49 CFR 
571.3) and is parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. 
For a side-facing seat, longitudinal centerline refers to the 
intersection of the seating surface and the vertical plane that passes 
through the seating reference point and is parallel to the transverse 
centerline of the vehicle.
* * * * *
    Seat centerline refers to the line formed by the intersection of 
the seating surface and the vertical plane that passes through the 
``seating reference point'' (as defined at 49 CFR 571.3) and is 
parallel to the direction that the seat faces.
* * * * *
    S4.2 Strength.
    S4.2.1(a) For vehicles manufactured before [date inserted would be 
the first September 1st that is three years from the date of 
publication of a final rule], except as provided in S4.2.5, the 
anchorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts for any of the 
following seat belt assemblies shall withstand a 22,241 N (5,000 pound) 
force when tested in accordance with S5.1 of this standard:
    (1) Type 1 seat belt assembly; and
    (2) Lap belt portion of either a Type 2 or automatic seat belt 
assembly, if such seat belt assembly is equipped with a detachable 
upper torso belt.
    (b) For vehicles manufactured on or after [date inserted would be 
the first September 1st that is three years from the date of 
publication of a final rule], except as provided in S4.2.5, the 
anchorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts for any of the 
following seat belts assemblies shall withstand a 22,241 N (5,000 
pound) force when tested in accordance with S5.3 of this standard:
    (1) Type 1 seat belt assembly; and
    (2) Lap belt portion of either a Type 2 or automatic seat belt 
assembly, if such seat belt assembly is equipped with a detachable 
upper torso belt.
    S4.2.2(a) For vehicles manufactured before [date inserted would be 
the first September 1st that is three years from the date of 
publication of a final rule], except as provided in S4.2.5, the 
anchorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts for any of the 
following seat belt assemblies shall withstand a 13,345 N (3,000 pound) 
force applied to the lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly 
simultaneously with a 13,345 N (3,000 pound) force applied to the 
shoulder belt portion of the seat belt assembly, when tested in 
accordance with S5.2 of this standard:
    (1) Type 2 and automatic seat belt assemblies that are installed to 
comply with Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208); and
    (2) Type 2 and automatic seat belt assemblies that are installed at 
a seating position required to have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt 
assembly by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208).
    (b) For vehicles manufactured on or after [date inserted would be 
the first September 1st that is three years from the date of 
publication of a final rule], except as provided in S4.2.5, the 
anchorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts for any of the 
following seat belt assemblies shall withstand a 13,345 N (3,000 pound) 
force applied to the lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly 
simultaneously with a 13,345 N (3,000 pound) force applied to the 
shoulder belt portion of the seat belt assembly, when tested in 
accordance with S5.4 of this standard:
    (1) Type 2 and automatic seat belt assemblies that are installed to 
comply with Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208); and
    (2) Type 2 and automatic seat belt assemblies that are installed at 
a seating position required to have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt 
assembly by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208).
* * * * *
    S5.3 Testing seating positions with Type 1 seat belt assemblies.
    (a) Position a FAD1 as specified in S7. When testing in accordance 
with S4.2.4, if after the FAD1 devices are installed, but prior to 
conducting the test, there is contact between the FAD1s, or if FAD1s 
cannot be positioned side-by-side due to contact, replace an inboard 
FAD1 with a FAD2. If contact remains and another inboard designated 
seating position exists, replace an additional inboard FAD1 with a 
FAD2. If contact remains and no other inboard designated seating 
position exists, replace the non-driver side outboard FAD1 with a FAD2. 
If there is still contact, replace the driver side outboard FAD1 with a 
FAD2.
    (b) After positioning the FAD1 or FAD2, as appropriate, in 
accordance with S7, apply a force of 22,241 N to the bridged pull yoke 
on the FAD1 or to the bridged pull yoke on the FAD2, in the direction 
in which the seat faces, in a vertical plane that passes through the 
``seating reference point'' (as defined in 49 CFR 571.3) and that is 
parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle for forward- and 
rear-facing seats, or that is perpendicular to the longitudinal 
centerline of the vehicle for side-facing seats, with an initial force 
application angle of 10 +/- 5 degrees above the horizontal plane and +/
- 5 degrees from the vertical plane. Apply the force at the onset rate 
of not more than 222,411 N per second. Attain the 22,241 N force within 
30 seconds and maintain it for 10 seconds.
    S5.4 Testing seats with Type 2 or Type 2A seat belt assemblies.
    (a) Position a FAD1 as specified in S7. When testing in accordance 
with S4.2.4, if after the FAD1 devices are installed, but prior to 
conducting the test, there is contact between the FAD1s, or if FAD1s 
cannot be positioned side-by-side due to contact, replace an inboard 
FAD1 with a FAD2. If contact remains and another inboard designated 
seating position exists, replace an additional inboard FAD1 with a 
FAD2. If contact remains and no other inboard designated seating 
position exists, replace the non-driver side outboard FAD1 with a FAD2. 
If there is still contact, replace the driver side outboard FAD1 with a 
FAD2.
    (b) After positioning the FAD1 or FAD2, as appropriate, in 
accordance with S7, apply forces of 13,345 N simultaneously to the yoke 
attached to the torso of the FAD1 or FAD2 and to the eyelet attached to 
the pelvis of the FAD1 or FAD2, in the direction in which the seat 
faces, in a vertical plane that passes through the ``seating reference 
point'' (as defined in 49 CFR 571.3), and that is parallel to the 
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle for forward- and rear-facing 
seats, or that is perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the 
vehicle for side-facing seats, with an initial force application angle 
of 10+/- 5 degrees above the horizontal plane and +/- 5 degrees from 
the vertical plane. Apply the forces at the onset rate of not more than 
133,447 N per second. Attain the 13,345 N force within 30 seconds of 
the initial application of force and maintain it for 10 seconds.
* * * * *
    S7. Force Application Device (FAD)1 and FAD2 Positioning Procedure.
    (a) If adjustable, place the seat in its rearmost position and, if 
separately adjustable in the vertical direction, at its lowest 
position.
    (b) If adjustable, place the seat back at the manufacturer's design 
seat back angle, as measured by SAE J826 (July 1995) (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  571.5).
    (c) Identify and mark the longitudinal centerline for each 
designated seating position.
    (d) Place the FAD1 or FAD2, as appropriate, on the seat such that 
the midsagittal plane of the FAD1 or FAD2 is vertical and within  10 mm of the seat centerline, with the torso in contact with the 
seat back.
    (e) While maintaining the alignment with the longitudinal 
centerline as

[[Page 19163]]

described in S7.(d), move the pelvis portion of the FAD1 or FAD2 toward 
the seat back until it contacts the seat back.
    (f) If the torso is not in contact with the seat back, rotate it 
against the seat back while holding the pelvis in place until the back 
of the torso is in contact with the seat back.
    (g) Apply a horizontal force of 180  5 N to the yoke 
attached to the torso of the FAD1 or FAD2 towards the seat back. While 
performing this step, ensure that the pelvis portion of the FAD1 or 
FAD2 remains in contact with the seat and seat back.
    (h) Buckle and position the seat belt so that the lap belt secures 
the pelvis portion of the FAD1 or FAD2 and the shoulder strap secures 
the torso portion of the FAD1 or FAD2.
    (i) Remove enough slack such that a 31.75 mm (1\1/4\ inch) diameter 
wooden rod will not pass between the FAD1 or FAD2 and the lap and 
shoulder belt with a maximum force of 2.22 N (0.5 lb-force) exerted 
tangent to the FAD1 or FAD2 shoulder or lap belt interface and ensure 
that the seat belt is locked in this position.
    (j) If testing a Type 2 or Type 2A seat belt assembly, attach one 
actuator to the yoke attached to the torso of the FAD1 and one to the 
eyelet attached to the pelvis of the FAD1, or to the torso of the FAD2 
and one to the eyelet attached to the pelvis of the FAD2. If testing a 
Type 1 seat belt assembly, attach the actuator to the bridged pull yoke 
of the FAD 1 or to the bridged pull yoke of the FAD2.
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MR12.001


[[Page 19164]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MR12.002


    Dated: Issued on: March 23, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-7623 Filed 3-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P