[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 107 (Thursday, June 3, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31330-31340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-12410]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-04-17980]
RIN 2127-AI38


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assemblies

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA proposes to amend the Federal motor 
vehicle safety standard for seat belt assemblies to redefine the 
requirements and to establish a new test methodology for emergency-
locking retractors. This rulemaking is in response to a petition for 
rulemaking submitted by a trade association representing manufacturers 
of occupant restraints. If adopted, the amendments would establish a 
new acceleration corridor, add a figure illustrating the acceleration 
corridor, provide tolerance on angle measurements, and employ the same 
instrumentation specifications currently found in other Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards containing crash tests.

DATES: You should submit comments early enough to ensure that Docket 
Management receives them not later than August 2, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket 
Number--04-17980] by the following methods:
     Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Submission of 
Comments heading under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. 
Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Analysis and 
Notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
William Fan, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-4922, 
and fax him at (202) 493-2739.
    For legal issues, you may contact Christopher Calamita, Office of 
Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992, and fax him at (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Performance Requirements
A. Rate of onset
B. Acceleration pulse duration
C. Acceleration tolerance level
D. Subsequent acceleration decay
III. Test Procedures and Measurement Specification
IV. ``Nuisance'' Locking
V. Regulatory Text
VI. Costs and Benefits
VII. Lead-Time
VIII. Request for Comments on Specific Issues
IX. Submission of Comments
X. Regulatory Analysis and Notices

I. Background

    The seat belt emergency-locking retractor was developed in the 
early 1960s to help maintain occupant position during rapid 
deceleration. The locking sensitivity of the device has been an 
important issue given the need to assure that the retractor would lock 
very early during a collision and even during the application of 
emergency braking, but not be so sensitive as to cause ``nuisance'' 
locking during normal driving conditions. Based on the limited 
knowledge and technology at the time, the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE) Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Committee (MVSBC) developed the 
recommended practice SAE J-4b, and subsequently SAE J-4c. These 
recommended practices provided performance requirements, laboratory 
test procedures, and minimal design requirements for seat belt 
assemblies for use in motor vehicles, in order to minimize the risk of 
bodily harm in an impact. However, the test methodologies for the 
emergency-locking retractor were not clearly defined in these SAE 
recommended practices. SAE J-4c was ultimately adopted by NHTSA in the 
promulgation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, 
Seat belt assemblies. As a result, the test methodology, 
instrumentation, and measurements for assessing conformance were not 
explicitly described in S4.3(j) and S5.2(j) of FMVSS No. 209. This 
situation has not changed since the adoption of the standard on 
February 3, 1967.
    Based on FMVSS No. 209, the agency developed a laboratory test 
procedure for its compliance laboratories to follow, which provided 
more detail concerning the test set up. The most recent version,

[[Page 31331]]

TP-209-05, was issued on January 17, 2003. To ensure that the retractor 
will be subject to at least 0.7 g in testing, as required by the 
standard, the test procedure specifies the use of a 0.72 g acceleration 
pulse. This test pulse accounts for calibration and accuracy ranges of 
the test equipment.
    The Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC) requested an 
interpretation of S4.3(j) and S5.2(j) to gain a better understanding of 
the seat belt emergency-locking retractor test procedures and 
performance requirements. NHTSA responded through an interpretation 
letter dated February 4, 2000. The AORC did not agree with the position 
expressed in the interpretation letter and subsequently submitted a 
petition for rulemaking on June 2, 2000.
    The AORC petition requested that NHTSA amend sections S4.3(j) and 
5.2(j) of FMVSS No. 209 with respect to the acceleration pulse shape, 
onset rate,\1\ time duration, and acceleration tolerance. (Docket 
Number NHTSA-2127-2000-7073-12.) In addition, the AORC requested that 
NHTSA apply to S4.3(j) and S5.2(j) the same instrumentation 
specifications used in other FMVSS dynamic performance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Onset rate is defined as the rate (in g/sec) at which the 
seat belt retractor is initially accelerated from time zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AORC indicated that at the time FMVSS No. 209 was developed, 
both the SAE Committee and NHTSA were working on emergency-locking 
retractors. Due to limitations of test equipment at that time, the SAE 
Committee specified that the 0.7 g acceleration be achieved within a 
time window of 50 milliseconds (ms), but declined to include an onset 
rate specification. The AORC believes that the intent of both the SAE 
Committee and NHTSA, at the time when FMVSS No. 209 was adopted, was to 
mimic a hard braking deceleration pulse in which the 0.7 g level should 
be achieved with a sharp onset rate, followed by a steady-state 
deceleration. However, neither the SAE Committee nor NHTSA addressed 
the onset rate range and the deceleration tolerance at that time, and 
neither organization has addressed the requirements for emergency-
locking retractors since then.
    In response to the AORC's request for an interpretation, the agency 
stated in the February 4, 2000 letter:

    Nothing in the standard purports to require a constant 
acceleration (or a constant rate of increase of acceleration), to 
establish a specific period during which the acceleration must be 
maintained, or to prohibit any ``decay'' after the 0.7 g level is 
reached. Therefore, each retractor must be able to meet the locking 
requirements of the standard regardless of the rate of acceleration, 
the duration of the acceleration, or the extent of any subsequent 
``decay.''

The AORC agreed that sections S4.3(j) and S5.2(j) do not explicitly 
address the technical points of the testing methodology. In its 
petition for rulemaking, the AORC argued that many acceleration pulses 
conform to S4.3(j) and S5.2(j) in theory, but those pulses would cause 
``currently-considered FMVSS No. 209 compliant retractors'' to fail the 
locking requirements within the 25 millimeter (mm) webbing payout. 
Further, AORC believes that NHTSA's interpretation permits testing 
methodologies that virtually no known emergency-locking retractor could 
possibly meet. In its petition, the AORC provided several example 
pulses that would conform to the criteria in the interpretation letter, 
but would not be sufficient to consistently lock a production 
retractor.
    To address these concerns, the AORC petitioned that S5.2(j) should 
include a specific acceleration-time (a-t) corridor, with the maximum 
and minimum acceleration onset rates matching those specified in the 
Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 16, Uniform Provisions 
Concerning the Approval of: Safety Belts and Restraint Systems for 
Occupants of Power-Driven Vehicles and Vehicles Equipped with Safety 
Belts (ECE R16). The AORC also stated that the acceleration and the 
webbing displacement recording techniques should conform to SAE 
Recommended Practice J211/1 rev. Mar 95, ``Instrumentation for Impact 
Test-Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation,'' (SAE J211/1 rev. Mar 95), 
the signals should be filtered with an SAE Class 60 filter, and the 
accelerometer should be an instrumentation grade, high accuracy, 10 g 
device. The petition contended that the addition of an a-t corridor and 
the specification of the test methodology and instrumentation would 
create the needed objectivity in the standard and fully clarify the 
standard in this area.

II. Performance Requirements

    Currently, there are two types of emergency-locking retractors in 
production. There are those that are sensitive to webbing withdrawal 
rate and those sensitive to vehicle deceleration. The latter type of 
retractor responds directly to the 0.7 g acceleration pulse and lock-up 
usually occurs within a short period of time. The former type of 
retractor responds to the webbing withdrawal speed, which slowly builds 
up from zero to the threshold speed, when the assembly is subjected to 
the 0.7 g acceleration pulse. As a result, a longer time period may be 
required for this type of retractor to respond. Despite the two 
different basic designs, FMVSS No. 209 has only one requirement for 
compliance testing.
    Under S4.3(j)(1) of FMVSS No. 209, an emergency-locking retractor 
of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly,\2\ when tested in accordance 
with S5.2(j), ``shall lock before the webbing extends 25 mm when the 
retractor is subject to an acceleration of 7 m/s2 (0.7 g).'' 
S5.2(j) states in part that ``[t]he retractor shall be subject to an 
acceleration of 7 m/s 2 (0.7g) within a period of 50 
milliseconds (ms), while the webbing is at 75 percent extension[.]''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under S3 of FMVSS No. 209, a Type 1 seat belt assembly is a 
lap belt for pelvic restraint, and a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a 
combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AORC asserts that these sections do not provide sufficient 
detail for certain allegedly essential elements necessary for 
conducting compliance tests. In its petition, the AORC stated that 
S4.3(j) and S5.2(j) do not specify: (A) A rate of onset, (B) an 
acceleration pulse duration, (C) an acceleration tolerance level, and 
(D) a subsequent acceleration decay.\3\ In response to the AORC's 
concerns, we are proposing to amend those paragraphs of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Acceleration decay is defined as the rate (in g/sec) at 
which the retractor acceleration is returned to zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Rate of Onset

    The agency is proposing a new acceleration corridor with an 
increased maximum onset rate and a wider acceleration corridor, which 
would allow a range of onset rates to be tested that we have 
preliminarily determined to be more representative of real world 
crashes and emergency braking events. If made final, these amendments 
would establish a maximum onset rate of 375 g/sec. (See Figure A.) We 
are also proposing a wider onset corridor to provide the opportunity 
for conducting compliance tests with simulated emergency braking 
pulses, or those pulses that have a half-bell shaped onset curve. This 
document also proposes a 16.25 g/sec minimum onset rate to accommodate 
purely linear pulses during the first 50 ms interval.

[[Page 31332]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JN04.000

    In developing this proposal, the agency examined vehicle crash 
tests, hard braking tests, FMVSS No. 209 compliance test pulses,\4\ and 
data presented by the AORC in its petition for rulemaking.\5\ We found 
that the onset rate for various crash test pulses varied greatly, from 
over 1,000 g/sec for crash pulses to 2 g/sec for emergency braking 
pulses. We determined that there are three basic onset pulse shapes 
used in compliance testing--(1) linear (Dayton T. Brown and Pacific 
Scientific Co.), (2) quarter-sine wave (Pacific Scientific Co.), and 
(3) half-bell shaped (U.S. Testing). While the linear type has a well-
defined rate of onset, the remaining two do not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ From U.S. Testing and Dayton T. Brown test laboratories.
    \5\ From Pacific Scientific Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To accommodate the range of onset rates, the agency is proposing to 
amend the time window within which the 0.7 g acceleration must be 
obtained. The proposed maximum onset rate of 375 g/sec would allow 
pulses that have historically been used for ensuring a minimum level of 
safety performance for the emergency-locking retractor in vehicle seat 
belts along with a wide range of acceleration pulses. The proposal 
expands the 150 g/sec maximum onset recommended by the AORC to include 
the acceleration pulses used for compliance testing by Dayton T. Brown 
and U.S. Testing. (See Figure B.) To exclude these pulses could 
potentially degrade the requirements of the standard. AORC did not 
provide any data to substantiate its assertion that its proposed onset 
rates were more appropriate. It merely noted that the onset rates 
matched closely to those specified in the ECE R16 (25 g/sec to 125 g/
sec).
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 31333]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JN04.001

    The proposed onset corridor and 16.25 g/sec minimum onset rate 
would allow for pulses with slower onset rates and require compliance 
under the acceleration pulses currently used for FMVSS No. 209 
compliance testing by U.S. Testing. The acceleration pulses currently 
used for FMVSS No. 209 have proven to be repeatable and reproducible. 
Specifying a corridor that includes the current acceleration pulses 
used for compliance testing demonstrates that it is possible to conduct 
a repeatable and reproducible acceleration pulse within the proposed 
corridor. While the AORC suggested a corridor more narrowly defined at 
the beginning (i.e., a 0-4 ms window), it did not provide a rationale 
for that limitation.
    Lastly, the proposed corridor addresses the AORC's concern of 
needing to certify to theoretical acceleration pulses that meet the 
letter of the current FMVSS No. 209 regulation, but may not exist in 
real world crash or emergency braking events. Figure C provides a plot 
demonstrating that the theoretical pulses and mathematical models 
provided by the AORC in its petition would be eliminated by the onset 
rate corridor proposed by this document. The revised onset rate 
corridor for the acceleration pulse in the proposal would maintain the 
integrity of the current FMVSS No. 209 standard.

[[Page 31334]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JN04.002

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

B. Acceleration Pulse Duration

    The proposal in this document would not require the test pulse to 
have a minimum time duration, as suggested in AORC's petition. The 50 
ms time period specified in S5.2(j) implicitly specifies an onset rate 
and not the time duration of the acceleration pulse. Since S4.3(j) and 
S5.2(j) do not provide a specific acceleration time duration, the AORC 
recommended that a retractor a-t corridor be included in S5.2(j). (See 
Docket Number NHTSA-2000-7073-12.)
    The lower bound of the corridor proposed by the AORC has a minimum 
time limit of 100 ms while the upper bound has no time limit. In 
theory, the AORC is suggesting that the minimum time duration for the 
0.7 g pulse should be 100 ms. However, the suggested a-t corridor 
presents some problems. For example, the minimum 100 ms time duration 
does not work for an acceleration pulse that coincides with the 
suggested upper a-t corridor, since it will produce a 25 mm webbing 
payout in about 86 ms. (This time estimate was made by double 
integrating the upper corridor of the a-t pulse.) We also note that the 
two compliance test pulses used by U.S. Testing and Dayton T. Brown 
laboratories would be disqualified by the AORC corridor since their 
duration is less than 100 ms. In these tests a lock-up occurs 10 ms to 
15 ms before the acceleration drops to zero.
    Once the onset rate of the acceleration pulse is given, the pulse 
duration that is required to produce 25 mm webbing payout is implicitly 
determined. Therefore, a pulse time duration specification is not 
essential.

C. Acceleration Tolerance Level

    In order to preserve test pulses that simulate the worst case test 
condition, we decided against proposing an a-t corridor that defines 
the permissible a-t curves with which to demonstrate performance. Some 
laboratory hard (emergency) braking tests show a peak in the 
acceleration before acceleration achieves a ``steady-state'' condition. 
In some instances, the initial peak pulse may exhibit several rapid 
oscillations before it converges to the 0.7 g acceleration. NHTSA's 
field braking test data (see the agency's document in this docket) show 
that the vehicle deceleration reaches its threshold value of 0.7 g at 
about 0.5 seconds and lasts for a few seconds, depending upon the 
vehicle travel velocity. The deceleration reaches its initial peak and 
then drops off, or perhaps even increases, slightly before it achieves 
the so-called ``steady-state condition.''
    The upper bound of the first 48 ms corridor (between 2 ms and 50 
ms) proposed in this document is 0.8 g to allow the initial peak to 
exceed 0.7 g prior to reaching a steady state response. Test 
laboratories often overshoot or undershoot the 0.7 g level at the 
beginning of the pulse for a short period of time. We have examined 
various compliance test pulses and found that many of them have an 
initial peak that is slightly higher than 0.7 g. For instance, the 
pulse used by U.S. Testing (see Figure B) shows that the acceleration 
starts at 9 ms to 10 ms, peaks at 0.75 g to 0.78 g around 26 ms, and 
then returns to the 0.7 g to 0.72 g range around 32 ms. The 
acceleration remains at approximately this range until the retractor 
locks. While the test pulse used by U.S. Testing shows a smooth, uni-
modal initial peak pulse, this may not always be the case. An initial 
peak pulse may exhibit several rapid oscillations before it converges 
to the 0.7 g acceleration.
    Based on the current compliance test data, the agency has 
tentatively concluded that an initial peak above 0.7 g should be 
allowed within the first 50

[[Page 31335]]

ms time period. While the a-t corridor proposed by the AORC would allow 
an initial peak of up to 0.75 g, it would exclude some of the test 
pulses used by U.S. Testing. If made final, the corridor proposed in 
this document would have an upper bound of 0.8 g from 2 ms to 50 ms to 
allow the initial peak to exceed 0.7 g prior to reaching a steady state 
response. This would reflect the agency's intent that the test pulse 
should simulate the worst case test condition, similar to those 
observed in laboratory hard (emergency) braking tests. For the 
remainder of the a-t corridor (from 50 ms of the lower corridor and 
upper corridor to the end of the test), the a-t corridor would be 
specified at 0.7 g with a +0.02/-0.05 g tolerance boundary.

D. Subsequent Acceleration Decay

    We are not proposing to include a specification for acceleration 
decay (pulse shape and duration) as requested by the AORC. FMVSS No. 
209 specifies that the emergency-locking retractor shall lock within 
the 25 mm webbing payout and that the acceleration shall reach 0.7 g 
within 50 ms, but does not address acceleration decay (time and rate of 
decrease from 0.7 g). The AORC requested that NHTSA amend the standard 
to include a specification for acceleration decay, but did not provide 
sufficient data demonstrating that such a specification is appropriate. 
It appears that the AORC is concerned about rapid acceleration decay 
after the initial peak.
    The AORC presented several theoretical analyses in support of its 
argument for a specified acceleration decay. One analysis showed that 
allowing an early acceleration decay far below the 0.7 g level is 
problematic to the webbing payout specification because it could cause 
a currently FMVSS No. 209 compliant retractor to not lock up during the 
test.
    While we acknowledge the difficulty of early decay, the AORC's 
concern has been addressed through this proposal. The lower boundary of 
the proposed corridor, as shown in Figure C, would prevent the use of 
acceleration pulses that have an early, rapid acceleration decay. After 
either a lock-up occurs or the webbing payout reaches 25 mm, the test 
is officially over. The acceleration pulse after this point does not 
affect the test results and is no longer a concern to test accuracy. 
Based on the above reasons, we conclude that a specification for 
acceleration decay is not required.

III. Test Procedures and Measurement Specification

    In agreement with the AORC petition, we are proposing that the 
acceleration specifications under FMVSS No. 209 be recorded and 
processed according to the practices specified in the SAE J211/1 rev. 
Mar 95. If these proposals are made final, the instrumentation used to 
record the a-t history and the webbing payout would be in conformance 
with the instrumentation requirements of SAE J211/1 rev. Mar 95, the 
electronic signals would be filtered with an SAE Class 60 filter, and 
the accelerometer used for retractor testing would be an 
instrumentation grade, high accuracy, 10 g device. While SAE J211/1 
rev. Mar 95 does not specify a measurement requirement for webbing 
payout, this proposal would require seat belt webbing payout be 
filtered with an SAE Class 60 filter, as is required under SAE J211/1 
rev. Mar 95 for seat belt forces. If made final, the proposal would 
employ the same instrumentation requirements currently specified in 
other dynamic performance Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
    The proposed test procedure would also specify use of a 
displacement transducer to measure webbing displacement. A displacement 
transducer would record a direct measurement of webbing displacement 
and eliminate uncertainty that is inherent in indirect measurement 
techniques, such as applying a numerical integration to accelerometer 
data.
    We are also proposing a tolerance for the angles specified in the 
test procedures. If made final, the standard would permit a tolerance 
of plus or minus 3 degrees for all angles and orientations of the seat 
belt assemblies and component, unless otherwise specified.

IV. ``Nuisance'' Locking

    FMVSS No. 209 establishes a sensitivity threshold for emergency-
locking retractors to prevent ``nuisance'' locking during normal 
driving conditions. Under S4.3(j)(2), an emergency-locking retractor 
sensitive to vehicle deceleration must not lock up when the retractor 
is rotated in any direction to any angle 15 degrees or less. Under 
S4.3(j)(3), an emergency-locking retractor sensitive to webbing 
withdrawal must not lock up before the webbing extends 51 mm when the 
retractor is subject to an acceleration of 0.3 g or less.
    The test procedure for determining compliance with the sensitivity 
threshold for an emergency-locking retractor sensitive to webbing 
withdrawal is similar to the test procedure for determining compliance 
with the 0.7 g lock-up requirement. As such, this document is also 
proposing to require that retractors sensitive to webbing withdrawal be 
subjected to an acceleration of 0.3 g occurring within a period of the 
first 50 ms and sustaining an acceleration no greater than 0.3 g 
throughout the test, while the webbing is at 75 percent extension, to 
determine compliance with S4.3(j)(2). We are not proposing a corridor 
for the 0.3 g acceleration because the current specification is valid 
and the AORC did not petition us to amend it.

V. Regulatory Text

    The proposed amendment would revise the format of the regulatory 
text. Under the proposal, all of the emergency-locking retractor 
requirements would be placed in S4.2(j). The proposed format would 
clarify the requirements and test procedures applicable to retractors 
sensitive to vehicle acceleration and retractors sensitive to webbing 
withdrawal.

VI. Costs and Benefits

    NHTSA did not estimate benefits for this rulemaking since it is 
anticipated that there would not be substantial changes in the 
performance of emergency-locking retractors. The proposed amendments 
more directly affect the test procedure specifications and are intended 
only to clarify the test specifications.
    NHTSA anticipates only a minimal cost burden to vehicle 
manufacturers from this proposal. The 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, NHTSA anticipates that only a small number of 
businesses would need to purchase new equipment since the 
specifications were requested by the AORC in its petition. The members 
of the AORC constitute the majority of seat belt suppliers in the U.S. 
Those who would have to purchase new equipment could do so for a one 
time minimal cost to the test laboratory. Further, it is anticipated 
that all current emergency-locking retractors would continue to comply 
with FMVSS No. 209 without change under the proposed amendments.

VII. Lead-Time

    If made final, the proposed amendments would have a one-year lead-
time. The major seat belt manufacturers in the United States,

[[Page 31336]]

through the AORC, initiated the petition associated with this 
rulemaking, so we do not anticipate any regulated parties having 
difficulties in complying. Although seat belt assemblies currently meet 
the proposals, the one-year lead-time would provide compliance 
laboratories time to reconfigure their acceleration pulses to meet the 
proposed corridors.

VIII. Request for Comments on Specific Issues

    In addition to the matters discussed above, we are seeking 
responses to the following questions:
    1. The AORC suggested a corridor more narrowly defined at the 
beginning (i.e., a 0-4 ms window). Would a narrower corridor as 
suggested by the AORC be feasible? Would a narrower corridor more 
accurately specify the a-t onset?
    2. Would any currently compliant emergency-locking retractor be 
unable to comply under the proposed corridor?
    3. Is 50 ms at the beginning of the time period sufficient to allow 
for an initial peak above 0.7g limit?
    4. ELR lock-up occurs when rotation of the ELR gear assembly stops. 
The methods employed by test laboratories to determine ELR lock-up are 
indirect methods rather than direct measurement of the ELR gear. In 
general, an ELR lock-up occurrence is determined by the observation of 
a sudden change in sled acceleration-time curve. Thus, the exact time 
of lock-up is subject to test laboratory's interpretation of this 
event. We are requesting input on methods that can be employed in our 
test procedures to accurately determine when ELR lock-up occurs. Your 
response should include the following:
    a. The type of sensing device and/or test equipment to be employed 
for detecting lock-up.
    b. Any procedures for performing a lock-up test. Please provide 
technical support.
    c. Any criteria used to evaluate the lock-up condition. Please 
provide technical support.

IX. Submission of Comments

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 Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically. Please note, if 
you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we 
ask that the documents submitted be scanned using Optical Character 
Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy 
certain portions of your submissions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of 
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or 
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for 
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet 
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data 
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the 
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed 
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's 
guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

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, take the following 
steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``Simple Search.''
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``Search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged 
documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded 
comments are not word searchable.
    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.

[[Page 31337]]

X. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (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 budget 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.
    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be 
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). As stated above in the 
Costs and Benefits section, this proposal would not require substantial 
changes in performance of emergency-locking retractors. Testing 
laboratories might need to develop new specifications for the 
instrumentation used to generate the acceleration pulses, but this is 
not expected to be more than a minimal cost burden for manufacturers.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 60l et 
seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this proposed action on small 
entities. I hereby certify that this notice of proposed rulemaking 
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The following is the agency's statement providing the factual basis 
for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). If adopted, the proposal would 
directly affect motor vehicle manufacturers, manufacturers of seat belt 
assemblies, and test laboratories. North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) code numbers 336111, Automobile 
Manufacturing, and 336112, Light Truck and Utility Vehicle 
Manufacturing, prescribe a small business size standard of 1,000 or 
fewer employees. A majority of vehicle manufacturers would not qualify 
as a small business. NAICS code No. 336399, All Other Motor Vehicle 
Parts Manufacturing, prescribes a small business size standard of 750 
or fewer employees.
    This proposal is in response to a petition from the AORC, which 
represents U.S. manufacturers of seat belt assemblies. The agency does 
not anticipate manufacturers of seat belt assemblies having any 
difficulty in complying with the proposal. The proposal, if made final, 
might make it necessary for testing laboratories to develop new 
specifications for the instrumentation used to generate and record the 
acceleration pulses. This would result in only a minimal burden to seat 
belt and vehicle manufacturers. Since test laboratories already have 
instrumentation necessary to record the a-t response for compliance 
testing, we estimate that the maximum, one-time cost to laboratories 
would be less than $500. This cost would be for the purchase of an 
instrument grade, high accuracy 10 g accelerometer.

C. Executive Order No. 13132

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132, Federalism, 
and has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient Federal 
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or 
the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. The proposal 
would not have any substantial impact on the States, or on the current 
Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

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

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not contain any collection of information 
requirements requiring review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-13).

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
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 (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, 
through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The amendments that NHTSA is proposing in this document incorporate 
voluntary consensus standards adopted by the Society of Automotive 
Engineers. Accordingly, this proposed rule is in compliance with 
Section 12(d) of NTTAA.

G. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposal would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 21403, 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. 21461 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to 
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects 
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to 
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually 
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This rulemaking would 
not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the

[[Page 31338]]

private sector in excess of $100 million annually.

I. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we 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 us.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it 
is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866 and does not 
involve decisions based on environmental, health, or safety risks that 
disproportionately affect children.

J. Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined 
under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse effect 
on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that is 
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. If made final, this 
rulemaking would amend the acceptable pulse corridor for demonstrating 
compliance with the seat belt emergency-locking retractor 
specifications. This proposal would also incorporate SAE measurement 
procedures. Therefore this proposal was not analyzed under E.O. 13211.

K. Data Quality Act

    Section 515 of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 Treasury and General 
Government Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106-554, Sec.  515, codified at 
44 U.S.C. Sec.  3516 historical and statutory note), commonly referred 
to as the Data Quality Act, directed OMB to establish government-wide 
standards in the form of guidelines designed to maximize the 
``quality,'' ``objectivity,'' `` utility,'' and ``integrity'' of 
information that federal agencies disseminate to the public. The Act 
also required agencies to develop their own conforming data quality 
guidelines, based upon the OMB model. OMB issued final guidelines 
implementing the Data Quality Act (67 FR 8452, Feb. 22, 2002). On 
October 1, 2002, the Department of Transportation promulgated its own 
final information quality guidelines that take into account the unique 
programs and information products of DOT agencies (67 FR 61719). The 
DOT guidelines were reviewed and approved by OMB prior to promulgation. 
NHTSA made information quality a primary focus well before passage of 
the Data Quality Act, and has made implementation of the new law a 
priority. NHTSA has reviewed its data collection, generation, and 
dissemination processes in order to ensure that agency information 
meets the standards articulated in the OMB and DOT guidelines, and 
plans to review and update these procedures on an ongoing basis.
    NHTSA believes that the information and data used to support this 
rulemaking adhere to the intent of the Data Quality Act and comply with 
both the OMB and DOT guidelines. NHTSA has reviewed all relevant 
procedures for research and analysis in order to ensure that 
information disseminated by the agency is accurate, reliable, and 
unbiased in substance, and is presented in a clear, complete, and 
unbiased manner. Having followed those procedures, NHTSA believes that 
the information related to this rulemaking meets the requirements of 
the Data Quality Act guidelines of both OMB and DOT. This expectation 
regarding information quality has been confirmed by the agency in the 
course of its pre-dissemination review, per the guidelines.
    Individuals may review all of the data related to this rulemaking 
by accessing the DOT docket management Web site at http://dms.dot.gov 
and using the docket number of this notice. See Section N. of this 
notice for further instructions.

L. 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 include them 
in your comments on this proposal.

M. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

N. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, 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 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 571.209 is amended by:
    a. Revising S4.1(a) and (b), S4.3(j) and S5.2(j);
    b. Adding S5.4; and
    c. Adding Figure 8 after Figure 7 of Sec.  571.209.
    The revised and added sections read as follows.


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

* * * * *
    S4 Requirements.
    S4.1 (a) Incorporation by reference. SAE Recommended Practice J211/
1 rev. March 1995, ``Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1--
Electronic Instrumentation,'' is incorporated by reference in S5.2(j) 
and is hereby made part of this Standard. The Director of the Federal 
Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1

[[Page 31339]]

CFR part 51. Copies of SAE Recommended Practice J211/1 rev. March 1995, 
``Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation'' 
are available from the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 
Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. You may inspect a copy at 
NHTSA's Technical Reference Library, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room 
5109, Washington, DC, or at the or at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (b) Single occupancy. A seat belt assembly shall be designed for 
use by one, and only one, person at any one time.
* * * * *
    S4.3 Requirements for hardware.
* * * * *
    (j) Emergency-locking retractor. An emergency-locking retractor of 
a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with 
the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)--
    (1) Shall under zero acceleration loading--
    (i) Exert a retractive force of not less than 1 N and not more than 
7 N when attached to a strap or webbing that restrains both the upper 
torso and the pelvis;
    (ii) Exert a retractive force not less than 3 N when attached only 
to the pelvic restraint; and
    (iii) Exert a retractive force of not less than 1 N and not more 
than 5 N when attached only to an upper torso restraint.
    (iv) For a retractor sensitive to vehicle acceleration, 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).
    (v) For a retractor sensitive to vehicle acceleration, not lock 
when the retractor is rotated in any direction to any angle of 15 
degrees or less from its orientation in the vehicle.
    (2) Shall lock before the webbing payout exceeds the maximum limit 
of 25 mm after the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7 g 
under the applicable test conditions of S5.2(j)(3)(i) or (ii).
    (3) For a retractor sensitive to webbing withdrawal, shall not lock 
before the webbing payout extends to the minimum limit of 51 mm when 
the retractor is subjected to an acceleration no greater than 0.3 g 
under the test condition of S5.2(j)(3)(iii).
* * * * *
    S5.2 Hardware.
* * * * *
    (j) Emergency-locking retractor. A retractor shall be tested in a 
manner that permits the retraction force to be determined exclusive of 
the gravitational forces on hardware or webbing being retracted.
    (1) Retraction force: The webbing shall be extended fully from the 
retractor, passing over and through any hardware or other material 
specified in the installation instructions. While the webbing is being 
retracted, measure the lowest force of retraction within plus or minus 
51 mm of 75 percent extension.
    (2) 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)(1) to determine compliance with S4.3(j)(1)(iv).
    (3) Dynamic tests: Each acceleration pulse shall be recorded using 
an accelerometer having a full scale range of plus and minus 10 g and 
processed according to the practice set forth in SAE Recommended 
Practice J211/1 rev. March 1995, ``Instrumentation for Impact Test--
Part 1 --Electronic Instrumentation,'' Channel Frequency Class 60. The 
webbing shall be positioned at 75 percent extension and the 
displacement shall be measured using a displacement transducer. The 
displacement data shall be processed at Channel Frequency Class 60. For 
tests specified in S5.2(j)(3)(i) and (ii), the 0.7 g acceleration pulse 
shall be within the acceleration-time corridor shown in Figure 8 of 
this standard.
    (i) For a retractor sensitive to vehicle acceleration--
    (A) The retractor drum's central axis shall be oriented at the 
angle at which it is installed in the vehicle. Accelerate the retractor 
in the horizontal plane in two directions normal to each other and 
measure webbing payout; and
    (B) If the retractor does not meet S4.3(j)(1)(iv), 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.
    (ii) For a retractor sensitive to webbing withdrawal--
    (A) The retractor drum's central axis shall be oriented 
horizontally. Accelerate the retractor in the direction of webbing 
retraction and measure webbing payout; and
    (B) The retractor drum's central axis shall be oriented at angles 
of 45, 90, 135, and 180 degrees to the horizontal plane. Accelerate the 
retractor in the direction of webbing retraction and measure the 
webbing payout.
    (iii) A retractor that is sensitive to webbing withdrawal shall be 
subjected to an acceleration no greater than 0.3 g occurring within a 
period of the first 50 ms and sustaining an acceleration no greater 
than 0.3 g throughout the test, while the webbing is at 75 percent 
extension. Measure the webbing payout.
* * * * *
    S5.4 Tolerance on angles. Unless a range of angles is specified, 
all angles and orientations of seat belt assemblies and components 
specified in this standard shall have a tolerance of plus or minus 3 
degrees.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 31340]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JN04.003

* * * * *

    Issued on May 26, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-12410 Filed 6-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C