[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76236-76277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19727]



[[Page 76235]]

Vol. 89

Tuesday,

No. 180

September 17, 2024

Part III





Department of Transportation





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





National Highway Traffic Safety Administration





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





49 CFR Part 571





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

  Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 76236]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0025]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends the procedures for testing the strength 
of seat belt anchorages in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
210, ``Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.'' The amendments clarify the 
positioning of the test device currently specified in the standard and 
add an optional test device (and corresponding test procedures) as a 
certification alternative. These amendments respond to an earlier court 
decision which found that the regulatory test procedures do not provide 
manufacturers adequate notice of how NHTSA would conduct the test.

DATES: 
    Effective date: This rule is effective October 17, 2024.
    Incorporation by reference date: The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of 
the Federal Register as of October 17, 2024.
    Compliance date: The compliance date is September 1, 2027, with 
optional early compliance permitted. Multi-stage manufacturers and 
alterers would have an additional year to comply.
    Petition for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of this 
final rule must be received not later than November 1, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer 
to the docket number set forth above and be submitted to the 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions 
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any 
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit your 
complete submission, including the information you claim to be 
confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the 
address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you 
should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed 
confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address 
given above. When you send a submission 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). Please see further 
information in the Regulatory Notices and Analyses section of this 
preamble.
    Privacy Act: The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is 
able to search the electronic form of all documents received into any 
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 
19477-78) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address 
listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Mr. Joshua McNeil, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Telephone: 
(202) 366-7612; Email: [email protected]; Facsimile: (202) 493-
2739. For legal issues, you may contact Mr. John Piazza, Office of 
Chief Counsel, Telephone: (202) 366-2992; Email: [email protected]; 
Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. The address of these officials is: the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. FMVSS No. 210
    B. 2012 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    C. 2015 Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    D. 2018 Notice of Availability
    E. International and Industry Consensus Anchorage Strength 
Requirements and Test Procedures
III. NHTSA's Statutory Authority
IV. NHTSA Research and Testing
    A. Research Docketed With the NPRM
    B. Research Docketed in 2018
V. Final Rule and Response to Comments
    A. Force Application Device
    1. FAD Design
    i. Durability and Strength of FADs
    ii. FAD Material and Potential Seat Belt Slippage
    iii. Weight of the FADs
    iv. Dimensions of the FADs
    v. FAD Abdomen Area
    vi. Bridged Pull Yoke
    vii. Clarifying Attachment to Force Actuator
    viii. Human Form Design
    ix. Effect on Seat Back Deformation
    x. Missing Tolerance Values
    xi. Design Drawings and Supplemental 3-D Data
    2. FAD Test Procedure
    i. Positioning Procedure
    ii. Selections of FAD1 or FAD2 and Contact Between Adjacent FADs 
and Vehicle Interior
    iii. Use of FAD2 on Buses and Heavy-Duty Trucks
    iv. Bottoming Out of Hydraulic Cylinders
    3. Repeatability
    4. Equivalence With the Body Blocks
    5. Familiarity With the FAD by Stakeholders
    6. Testing Costs
    i. Costs of Testing With the FAD
    ii. Potential Re-Certification Costs
    7. Incorporation by Reference
    B. Body Blocks
    1. Retention of Body Blocks and Appropriateness of Specifying 
Zones for Body Block Placement
    2. Reference Point for Determining Zone Locations
    3. Applicability of Zones to a Range of Vehicle and Seat Designs 
and Factors Affecting Position of Body Blocks at Preload
    4. Size of Zones, Variability of Test Results, and Effect on 
Compliance
    5. Laboratory Safety Concerns
    6. Lack of Regulatory Test Procedure Language and Requested 
Public Workshop
    7. Alternative Solutions Suggested by NPRM Commenters
    C. Issues Common to the FAD and Body Blocks
    1. Shoulder Belt Height Adjustment
    2. Preload Force Magnitude and Duration
    3. Seat Adjustment
    4. Seat Belt Pretension and Routing
    5. Hold Time Requirement
    6. Force Application Angle
    7. Use of a Dedicated Test Belt
    8. Testing of Side-Facing Seats
    9. Compliance Options
    10. Regulatory Alternatives
    11. Leadtime
VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
VII. Appendices to the Preamble

I. Executive Summary

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 210, ``Seat belt 
assembly anchorages,'' establishes requirements for seat belt 
anchorages, which are the part of the vehicle that transfers seat belt 
loads to the vehicle structure. The standard sets out a variety of 
requirements for seat belt

[[Page 76237]]

anchorages, including performance requirements that ensure that the 
anchorages are strong enough to remain attached to the vehicle 
structure in a crash. The standard requires seat belt anchorages to 
withstand specified forces when tested according to the test procedures 
specified in the standard. The test forces are applied to the seat 
belts by test devices referred to as ``body blocks,'' which essentially 
take the place of an occupant. The body blocks are placed on the seat, 
secured with the seat belt, and attached to a force actuator that 
applies the specified test forces. The standard has included the 
anchorage strength requirements and body blocks since its inception in 
1967. International regulations and industry consensus standards also 
contain seat belt anchorage strength requirements, which, although 
different from FMVSS No. 210 in various ways, generally mirror FMVSS 
No. 210 by specifying the use of body blocks similar to the FMVSS No. 
210 body blocks.
    This final rule amends the test procedures for the standard's seat 
belt anchorages strength requirements. The current standard specifies a 
variety of aspects of the test procedure, but does not specify 
precisely where on the vehicle seat NHTSA will position the body blocks 
at the start of the test before the test loads are applied. This lack 
of specificity has, in the past, resulted in manufacturers conducting 
compliance testing differently from NHTSA. As a result, in the late 
1990s the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
ruled that NHTSA had failed to provide adequate notice of where on the 
vehicle seat NHTSA would position the body block. As a result, NHTSA 
was not able to compel the recall of the vehicles at issue in that 
case, which had failed the anchorage strength test when tested by 
NHTSA.
    To address the issues identified by the court, and to make the seat 
belt anchorage strength test easier to carry out, in 2012 NHTSA 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (77 FR 19155, March 
30, 2012) that proposed replacing the body blocks with a new test 
device referred to as the Force Application Device (FAD). The FAD 
consists of an upper torso portion and a pelvic portion hinged together 
to form a one-piece device that roughly resembles the human form. NHTSA 
developed two different size versions of the FAD, referred to as FAD1 
and FAD2. The test procedure proposed for the FAD addressed the issues 
about the positioning of the test device that had been identified by 
the Court of Appeals. NHTSA also explained in the NPRM that it believed 
that the FAD would be easier to use than the body blocks. NHTSA 
developed the FAD independently and it has not yet been adopted outside 
of the United States.
    The agency received a variety of comments in response to the NPRM. 
Vehicle manufacturers and seat suppliers stated several concerns with 
the FAD and the corresponding seating procedure, including the design 
and performance of the FAD, lack of knowledge or experience testing 
with the FAD, harmonization, and cost.
    After considering these comments, NHTSA decided to evaluate the 
feasibility of retaining the body blocks and refining the regulatory 
test procedure to specify where on the seat NHTSA would position the 
body blocks. In 2015, NHTSA published a supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking (SNPRM) (80 FR 11148, March 2, 2015) in which it explained 
that it was considering specifying, either instead of or as an 
alternative to the FAD, a three-dimensional zone(s) with respect to the 
seat in which the body blocks would be positioned. The SNPRM explained 
that this contemplated procedure using zones was modelled after a 
similar procedure in FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and 
crash protection. By refining the current test procedure to include 
these zones, NHTSA stated that it intended the standard clarify how the 
agency will position the body blocks. The agency also stated that it 
had initiated research to develop the zones and that the research would 
evaluate the zone concept across different vehicle types and seat 
configurations and establish appropriate zone boundaries to ensure that 
the procedure is feasible and practicable for all vehicles. In 2018, 
NHTSA published a notice of availability (83 FR 16280, April 16, 2018) 
and docketed reports and data on the additional research it had 
completed on the development of the body block zones, as well as the 
FAD.
    NHTSA received a variety of comments in response to the SNPRM. 
These included, among other things, concerns with whether the zones 
would work for all vehicles and vehicle types (especially for heavy-
duty trucks and buses, which have different seats from passenger 
vehicles); the size of the zones and potential variability in the test 
results; and the need for existing vehicle platforms to be re-certified 
using the new zones. Several SNPRM commenters supported the continued 
use of the body blocks in addition to the option of using the FAD.

Summary of Final Rule

    The final rule amends FMVSS No. 210 to specify zones for the 
placement of the body blocks and to include the FAD as an alternative 
compliance option (at the manufacturer's choice).
Placement Zones for the Body Blocks
    The finalized zones are the zones specified in the research report 
NHTSA docketed in 2018. NHTSA's testing shows that the zones are valid 
for a wide range of vehicles, including medium- and heavy-duty 
vehicles. The zones are based on data from a range of different 
vehicles and were mathematically expanded to accommodate an even wider 
range of vehicles. To ensure that the zones would apply to a wide 
variety of vehicles and seats, the agency's research considered the 
factors identified by the SNPRM commenters, as well as other factors 
that may affect body block position.
    While the zones are large enough to account for a variety of 
vehicles and seat types, they are still relatively modest in size, and 
there is no data or evidence that suggests that there will be large 
variability in force vectors or test results. For the same reasons, we 
have not seen any data or evidence to suggest that testing to the final 
zones will result in different compliance outcomes compared to the 
existing test procedure. The current test procedure has no constraints 
on the positioning of the body blocks. The refined test procedure in 
this final rule establishes allowable zones for the positioning of the 
body blocks, which have been used for testing anchorage strength since 
the standard's inception in 1967. Use of the body blocks within the 
allowable zones reduces the set of permissible test conditions, which 
also reduces the variability of the test.
Force Application Device
    The final rule specifies the FAD as an optional alternative to the 
body blocks that manufacturers may choose to certify compliance. 
Manufacturers that prefer to certify using the body blocks may continue 
to do so. Design drawings of the FAD1 and FAD2 are incorporated by 
reference into the final rule and are sufficiently detailed to allow 
manufacturers to fabricate the devices. In addition to the two-
dimensional engineering drawings incorporated by reference in the final 
rule, NHTSA is making three-dimensional design drawings available for 
reference purposes (e.g., to facilitate fabrication). In response to 
comments, the final rule also clarifies some of the proposed

[[Page 76238]]

regulatory text. NHTSA estimates the cost of each FAD to be 
approximately $8,000.
    We are providing a two-year lead time for the use of the body 
blocks and the FAD as established by this final rule. Providing vehicle 
manufacturers the option to continue to use the current body blocks or 
the FAD for certification should alleviate the lead time concerns 
expressed by commenters to the NPRM.
    This final rule is not significant and so was not reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.

II. Background

A. FMVSS No. 210

    FMVSS No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages,'' applies to 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (``MPVs''), trucks, and 
buses of all weights. The standard establishes requirements for seat 
belt assembly anchorages (``seat belt anchorages''). Seat belt 
anchorages are any component, other than the webbing or straps, 
involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, 
including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, 
seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the 
vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle 
structure. The standard's requirements ensure that the anchorages are 
properly located for effective occupant restraint and are sufficiently 
strong so that they remain attached to the vehicle structure in a 
crash. As to the latter, the standard requires seat belt anchorages to 
withstand specified forces when tested according to the procedures 
specified in the standard. This final rule amends the test procedures 
for the standard's seat belt anchorage strength requirements.
    Since its inception in 1967, FMVSS No. 210 has included anchorage 
strength requirements, tested with body blocks.\1\ Under the standard, 
seat belt anchorages for lap-belt only belts (referred to as ``Type 1'' 
belts \2\) must withstand a 22,241 Newton (N) (5,000 pound (lb)) force. 
Seat belt anchorages for combination lap/shoulder belts (``Type 2 
belts'' \3\) must withstand a 13,345 Newton (N) (3,000 lb) force 
applied to the lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly 
simultaneously with a 13,345 N force applied to the torso (i.e., 
shoulder) belt portion of the seat belt assembly (``test force'' or 
``test load''). Because Type 2 belts are generally required for most 
seating positions and vehicle types, for ease of explanation the 
preamble discussion will assume that testing is for a Type 2 belt 
unless otherwise noted. These forces are applied to the lap belt 
portion of the belt by a pelvic body block and the torso portion of the 
belt by a torso body block. The torso and pelvic body blocks are 
separate test devices that are positioned at each designated seating 
position tested. The standard specifies the shape, dimensions, and the 
covering (foam) of the body blocks, but otherwise, the construction of 
the body block may vary.\4\ See Figure 1 for depictions of the torso 
and pelvic body blocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 32 FR 2408, 2415-2416 (February 3, 1967) (Initial 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards).
    \2\ See 49 CFR 571.210, S3 (definition of ``Type 1 seat belt 
assembly'').
    \3\ See 49 CFR 571.210, S3 (definition of ``Type 2 seat belt 
assembly'').
    \4\ See FMVSS No. 210, Fig. 2A (pelvic body block), Fig. 2B 
(optional pelvic body block for center seating positions), and Fig. 
3 (torso body block). See also FMVSS No. 222, ``School bus passenger 
seating and crash protection,'' Figure 2 (pelvic body block). The 
FMVSS No. 222 pelvic body block is only used for school buses with a 
GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or less.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE24.012


[[Page 76239]]


    The body blocks are placed on the seat, secured with the seat 
belt,\5\ and attached (typically, with heavy-duty chains) to a force 
actuator that applies the specified test forces. Although not currently 
specified in the regulatory text of FMVSS No. 210, the laboratory test 
procedure for the standard specifies a preload in addition to the test 
force.\6\ Specifically, after the body blocks are secured with the seat 
belt, the force actuator applies a preload equal to 10% of the test 
force. While at the preload level, photographs and measurements of the 
load application angles are taken. The load is then increased to the 
full test force. The test force must be attained within 30 seconds and 
held for 10 seconds. The anchorage, attachment hardware, and attachment 
bolts must withstand this loading; \7\ permanent deformation or rupture 
of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to 
be a failure if the required force is sustained for the specified 
time.\8\ Typically, for compliance testing, all seats in the vehicle 
are tested, starting from the front of the vehicle. After the front 
seats have been tested, they may be removed to facilitate access to the 
rear seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The seat belt may be replaced with material whose breaking 
strength is greater than or equal to the breaking strength of the 
webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment 
at that seating position. S5.
    \6\ Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS 210 Seat Belt Assembly 
Anchorages. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (TP-210-09) (Feb. 7, 1994), available 
at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-06/tp-210-09-tag.pdf. The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) publishes, 
for each standard, a laboratory test procedures manual containing 
more detailed test procedures and laboratory practices for NHTSA-
contracted test laboratories. This is distinguished from the test 
procedures set out in the regulatory text of the FMVSS.
    \7\ S4.2.1, S4.2.2.
    \8\ S4.2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither the standard nor the laboratory test procedure specifies 
precisely where on the vehicle seat NHTSA will position the body 
blocks. This lack of specificity has, in the past, resulted in 
manufacturers conducting compliance testing differently from NHTSA, as 
illustrated in an enforcement action brought against Chrysler in the 
1990s for apparent noncompliance with FMVSS No. 210.\9\ In the 
compliance test at issue there, NHTSA positioned the pelvic body block 
away from the seat back. Chrysler argued that its vehicle met the 
anchorage strength requirements 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 had failed to provide adequate notice 
about the correct placement of the pelvic body block and ruled that 
NHTSA could not compel Chrysler to recall the vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See United States v. Chrysler Corp., 158 F.3d 1350 (D.C. 
Cir. 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, setting up the body blocks for testing can be 
cumbersome because the torso body block does not sit on the seat and 
must be supported by someone or something as the preload is applied to 
the shoulder portion of the seat belt. Doing so can be challenging when 
testing multiple adjacent seating positions simultaneously because the 
preload must be maintained on body blocks that are already set up until 
all the body blocks are set up in a manner that minimizes the chance of 
load interference, and all seating positions are ready for the full 
test force. This setup typically necessitates two technicians and, 
potentially, multiple attempts to run the test, because the torso body 
block tends to come out of position.

B. 2012 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    To address the issues identified by the Chrysler decision and the 
challenges associated with the use of the body blocks, on March 30, 
2012, the agency published an NPRM.\10\ In that NPRM, NHTSA proposed to 
amend FMVSS No. 210 to replace the pelvic and torso body blocks with a 
new Force Application Device (FAD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 77 FR 19155 (March 30, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAD consists of an upper torso portion and a pelvic portion 
hinged together to form a one-piece device that roughly resembles the 
human form. NHTSA developed two different size versions of the FAD, 
referred to as FAD1 and FAD2. The external dimensions of the FAD1 are 
based on digital data developed by the University of Michigan 
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) as a representation of the 
50th percentile adult male.\11\ 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. NHTSA 
developed the specifications for the smaller FAD2 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. 
The FAD1 and the FAD2 are specified in approximately 32 drawings that 
were docketed with the NPRM. As requested by Faurecia S.A. Automotive 
Seating, NHTSA provided the Initial Graphics Exchange Specification 
files of the 3-D contours for the torso and pelvis portions of the FAD1 
and FAD2, and in a docketed memo informed the public that the files 
were available upon request.\12\ NHTSA estimated the cost of each FAD 
to be approximately $8,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Robbins, D. 1985. ``Anthropometric Specifications for Mid-
Size Male Dummy,'' Volume 2, UMTRI, DOT HS 806 716.
    \12\ NHTSA-2012-0036-0020. These reference materials would not 
be incorporated into FMVSS No. 210. Instead, they are intended only 
for reference purposes (e.g., to facilitate fabrication and 
inspection of parts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulatory text specified how the FADs would be seated 
at the outset of the strength test (i.e., before any load was applied 
to the belt). Like the existing body blocks, the FADs are secured with 
the seat belt(s) and are attached to a force actuator that applies the 
specified test forces. For combination lap/shoulder belts (Type 2 seat 
belts), the force actuator is connected to separate connection points 
on the torso and lap portions of the FAD to apply the required forces 
to the lap and shoulder portions of the belt simultaneously; for lap 
belt-only anchorages, a bridged pull yoke is used to connect the 
connection points of the torso and lap portions of the FAD, so that 
they are jointly pulled.
    As to which FAD the agency would use for a particular designated 
seating position, NHTSA proposed that if it was not testing in 
accordance with S4.2.4,\13\ it would use the FAD1. For tests conducted 
in accordance with S4.2.4, NHTSA proposed that, 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. (As discussed later in this document (in section 
V.C.2.b), the proposal was not clear whether this contact was prior to 
the preload force or prior to when the test force was applied to the 
FADs.) 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 right outboard

[[Page 76240]]

DSP would be replaced with a FAD2. If there is still contact between 
the FADs, the FAD1 in the left outboard DSP would be replaced with a 
FAD2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency received 14 comments in response to the NPRM from 13 
organizations and an individual. (One entity submitted two comments.) 
Commenters included five vehicle manufacturer associations, three 
medium and/or heavy-duty truck manufacturers, two light vehicle 
manufacturers, two seat suppliers, one bus manufacturer, and one test 
facility. The commenters stated several concerns with the FAD and the 
corresponding seating procedure. These concerns included issues such as 
the design and performance of the FAD, harmonization, the proposed test 
procedure, and cost. (The comments are discussed in detail later in 
this document.)

C. 2015 Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    After considering the comments on the NPRM, the agency decided to 
evaluate the feasibility of maintaining the current body blocks and 
refining the regulatory test procedure to specify where on the seat 
NHTSA would position the body blocks. On March 2, 2015, NHTSA published 
an SNPRM.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 80 FR 11148 (March 2, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency explained that it was considering specifying, either 
instead of or as an alternative to the FAD, zones within which the 
current body blocks would be placed. The procedure would establish a 
three-dimensional region with respect to the seat in which the body 
blocks would be positioned; there would be two zones, one for the torso 
body block, and one for the pelvic body block. The pelvic body block 
would be positioned within the pelvic body block zone and the torso 
body block would be positioned within the torso body block zone. This 
positioning would be accomplished by first applying a preload force (of 
1,335 N) to each body block. While this preload force is being applied, 
the torso and pelvic body blocks would be positioned so that a 
specified ``target'' on each block is within each of the applicable 
zones.
    As explained in the SNPRM, this positioning is based on the similar 
procedure specified in FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and 
crash protection.\15\ FMVSS No. 222 includes a ``quasi-static'' test 
requirement to help ensure that school bus seat backs incorporating 
lap/shoulder belts are strong enough to withstand both the forward pull 
of the torso belts and the forces imposed on the seat from unbelted 
passengers to the rear of the belted occupants in a crash. That 
procedure, which uses the FMVSS No. 210 torso body block (but not the 
pelvic body block), establishes a zone in which the torso body block 
must be located. Specifically, FMVSS No. 222 specifies that the torso 
body block is placed in the seat, secured behind the seat belt, and a 
preload of 600 N is applied. This preload force is, depending on the 
weight of the vehicle being tested (because the test forces specified 
in FMVSS No. 222 depend on vehicle weight), approximately 8 percent to 
18 percent of the full test load. After the preload application is 
complete, the origin of the torso body block radius at any point across 
the torso body block thickness must lie within a zone defined by 
specified boundaries. The forward boundary of this zone is established 
by a transverse vertical plane of the vehicle located 100 mm 
longitudinally forward of the seating reference point (SgRP).\16\ The 
upper and lower boundaries of the zone are 75 mm above and below the 
horizontal plane located midway between the horizontal plane passing 
through the school bus torso belt adjusted height (specified in S3 of 
FMVSS No. 210), and the horizontal plane 100 mm below the SgRP. After 
the 600 N preload is applied and the torso body block is verified as 
being within the specified zone, the required test forces are 
applied.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 73 FR 62744 (October 21, 2008) (final rule upgrading 
FMVSS No. 222).
    \16\ The seating reference point (SgRP) is defined in 49 CFR 
571.3.
    \17\ The required test forces for FMVSS No. 222 vary from 3,300 
N to 7,500 N, depending on the weight of the bus and the type of 
seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA explained in the SNPRM that it was planning to develop 
separate zones for the placement of the torso and pelvic body blocks to 
be specified in FMVSS No. 210. By refining the current test procedure 
to include these zones, NHTSA stated that it intended the standard to 
be clearer as to how the agency will position the body blocks. The 
agency explained that it did not intend to increase the stringency of 
the standard. The agency also stated that it had initiated research to 
develop the zones and stated that the research would evaluate the zone 
concept across different vehicle types and seat configurations and 
establish appropriate zone boundaries to ensure that the procedure is 
feasible and practicable for all vehicles.
    NHTSA received nine comments in response to the SNPRM: three 
vehicle manufacturer associations, one vehicle manufacturer, three 
suppliers, one foreign government, and one individual. The commenters 
raised several concerns and issues with the SNPRM. These concerns 
included, among other things, concerns with the appropriateness of the 
zone concept, the size of the zones and potential variability in the 
test results, and specific concerns with the test procedures. There 
were also several additional comments about the FADs. Several SNPRM 
commenters supported the continued use of the body blocks in addition 
to the option of using the FAD. Many of the compliance concerns raised 
in response to the NPRM were also present in response to the SNPRM, 
since the agency proposed refining the test procedure for the continued 
use of the body blocks. For instance, commenters raised concerns 
regarding recertification, lead time, harmonization, and costs 
associated with recertification and potential redesign. These comments 
are discussed in detail later in this document.

D. 2018 Notice of Availability

    In 2018, NHTSA published a notice of availability \18\ and docketed 
reports and data on the additional research it had completed on the FAD 
and the development of the body block zones. NHTSA also docketed test 
reports describing additional testing conducted with the FAD. This 
research is discussed in more detail in section IV, NHTSA Research and 
Testing, and elsewhere in the preamble where relevant. NHTSA received 
two comments from trade groups in response to the 2018 notice of 
availability (a list of the comments received in response to the NPRM, 
SNPRM, and notice of availability is provided in appendix A of this 
document). The comments recommended, among other things, that NHTSA 
issue and provide opportunity to comment on a pre-final rule draft test 
procedure and schedule a compliance workshop. These comments are 
discussed in detail later in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 83 FR 16280 (April 16, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. International and Industry Consensus Anchorage Strength Requirements 
and Test Procedures

    International regulations and industry consensus standards also 
establish seat belt anchorage strength requirements. These include 
United Nations Regulation No. 14 (ECE R14), Transport Canada's 
Technical Standards Document No. 210, Australian ADR 05, and SAE 
Standard J384 (2014). As explained below, all these standards specify 
pelvic and torso body blocks similar to the FMVSS No. 210 body

[[Page 76241]]

blocks but do differ somewhat from the FMVSS No. 210 test 
procedures.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The NPRM made mention of an ISO standard (TR 1417-1974) but 
that has since been withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

United Nations Regulation No. 14 (ECE R14) and Australian ADR 5, 
Anchorages for Seatbelts
    ECE R14 provides the uniform provisions concerning the approval of 
vehicles regarding seat belt anchorages, including the general test 
requirements for seat belt anchorages. The load requirements differ 
somewhat from FMVSS No. 210 (e.g., FMVSS No. 210 requires 13,345 N and 
ECE R14 requires 13,500 N  200 N) and there are different 
load requirements for different vehicle types. For example, category M1 
and N1 vehicles (passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, vans, 
pick-ups, and light trucks) have similar requirements as FMVSS No. 210 
but M3, N3, and other vehicle types have lower load requirements. R14 
also specifies different load requirements for rear-facing and side-
facing designated seating positions (same as the requirements for M3 
vehicles). As far as achieving the required load and the holding 
requirement, ECE R14 allows achieving the load in 60 seconds (versus 
FMVSS No. 210 requirement of 30 seconds) and the hold requirement is 
0.2 seconds (versus FMVSS No. 210 requirement of 10 seconds). 
Australian ADR 5, Anchorages for Seatbelts, follows the ECE R14 
requirements.
    ECE R14 and FMVSS No. 210 specify similar body blocks for testing 
the seat belt anchorages.\20\ R14 also specifies some aspects of the 
test procedure not currently specified in FMVSS No. 210. R14 specifies 
the placement of the body blocks at preload; it specifies that the belt 
be pulled tight against the pelvic block and that the torso block be 
pushed back into the seat back while the belt is pulled tight around 
it. R14 also specifies the location of the pivot point on the torso 
body block. R14 specifies a preload of 10 percent of the full load, 
with a tolerance of 30 percent. Another distinction between 
FMVSS No. 210 and ECE R14 is that ECE R14 also has a distinct pelvic 
block for testing side-facing seats and specifies that the direction of 
the test load be forward in relation to the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For example, the regular size pelvic block and the torso 
block dimensions have slight variations (e.g., for torso block R200 
vs R203; for pelvic block the width is 406 mm vs 356 mm and R520 vs 
R495, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transport Canada's Technical Standards Document No. 210
    Transport Canada's Technical Standards Document No. 210, Seat Belt 
Anchorages, is based on FMVSS No. 210,\21\ and the two standards are 
nearly identical. The same pelvic and torso body blocks are used to 
test the strength of the seat belt anchorages at the same test loads 
for Type 1 and Type 2 seat belts and with the same hold time of 10 
seconds once the test load is achieved. Like FMVSS No. 210, the 
Canadian standard lacks a specification for the placement of the body 
blocks at preload. The standard specifies a procedure for adjustments 
in the event of interference between the pelvic body block and belt 
buckle. A 50th percentile anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) is placed at 
each seating position with the seat belt fastened around it and all 
slack is removed from the webbing. At this position, the belt webbing 
is marked and the ATDs are removed. The body blocks are placed 
``against the back of the seat'' and the belts are fastened around the 
blocks. The blocks are moved forward if the belt buckle seems to be 
susceptible to damage upon inspection, but the blocks are not to be 
moved further forward than the mark made with the ATD placed in the 
seat. The approach of using an ATD to address interference between the 
block and the belt buckle differs from NHTSA's test procedure for FMVSS 
No. 210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/files/migrated/tsd_210_en.PDF (last accessed June 14, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAE J384 (Rev. 2014) and J383 (Rev. 2014)
    SAE J384 (Rev. 2014) specifies test procedures for seat belt 
anchorages and SAE J383 (Rev. 2014) provides design recommendations for 
seat belt anchorage locations. SAE J384 is nearly identical to FMVSS 
No. 210, with similar body block specifications (the torso body block 
has the same dimensions, but also includes a pull arm), test loads, and 
the option to replace the seat belt webbing with other material. The 
standard specifies a preload of 10%. The body blocks are positioned at 
each DSP and the seat belts are positioned around the blocks ``to 
represent design intent routing.''

III. NHTSA's Statutory Authority

    NHTSA is adopting this rule pursuant to its authority under the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. 
(``Safety Act''). Under the Safety Act, NHTSA (under authority 
delegated by the Secretary of Transportation \22\) is responsible for 
prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet 
the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective 
terms.\23\ ``Motor vehicle safety'' is defined in the Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act as ``the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 
equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk 
of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or 
performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death 
or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor 
vehicle.'' \24\ ``Motor vehicle safety standard'' means a minimum 
performance standard for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.\25\ 
When prescribing such standards, NHTSA must consider all relevant, 
available motor vehicle safety information.\26\ NHTSA must also 
consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and 
appropriate for the types of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment 
for which it is prescribed and the extent to which the standard will 
further the statutory purpose of reducing traffic accidents and 
associated deaths.\27\ In promulgating this rule, NHTSA carefully 
considered all the aforementioned statutory requirements. NHTSA 
evaluates this rule with respect to these requirements in section V of 
the preamble where relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 49 CFR 1.95.
    \23\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
    \24\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).
    \25\ Section 30102(a)(10).
    \26\ Section 30111(b)(1).
    \27\ Section 30111(b)(3)-(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. NHTSA Research and Testing

    This final rule is supported by a variety of research. Some of this 
research was docketed with the NPRM. Research was also conducted and 
docketed after the NPRM but before issuance of this final rule. NHTSA 
briefly summarizes the agency's research below. More specific 
discussion of various aspects of this research is available in the 
cited test reports, the NPRM, and in subsequent sections of this 
document. This research is summarized in Table 1.

[[Page 76242]]



           Table 1--Summary of Research Supporting Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Research                     Summary             Docket ID
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Research Docketed with NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Report: Development of a  Description of design,  NHTSA-2012-0036-
 Combination Upper Torso and     materials, and          0002.
 Pelvic Body Block for FMVSS     positioning
 210 Test.                       procedures. Analysis
                                 of FAD positioning
                                 consistency based on
                                 testing of nine light
                                 vehicles from two-
                                 seat sports cars to
                                 light-duty trucks.
                                 Analysis of FAD
                                 anchorage force
                                 repeatability based
                                 on testing of three
                                 seat configurations.
Indicant Test Reports.........  Full-scale FMVSS No.    NHTSA-2012-0036-
                                 210 anchorage           0002.
                                 strength tests using
                                 the FAD on nine
                                 vehicles: six
                                 passenger cars, an 11-
                                 passenger van, a
                                 minivan with stow-and-
                                 go seating, and an F-
                                 150 SuperCab pickup
                                 truck.
Repeatability Analysis of the   Additional analysis of  NHTSA-2012-0036-
 Forces Applied to Seat Belt     FAD anchorage force     0002.
 Anchors Using the Force         repeatability using
 Application Device.             the FMVSS No. 214
                                 test procedure and
                                 comparing channel
                                 measurements
                                 differences.
FAD inspection report.........  Report of drawings and  NHTSA-2012-0036-
                                 parts lists, drawing    0002.
                                 revisions, and
                                 measurements of
                                 multiple FAD devices
                                 used in . . .
FAD drawing packages..........  Drawing packages for    NHTSA-2012-0036-
                                 the FAD1 and FAD2.      0002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Research Docketed with Notice of Availability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body Block Zone Development     Report detailing        NHTSA-2012-0036-
 Report.                         development of body     0041.
                                 block zones.
Indicant testing of FAD on      Full-scale FMVSS No.    NHTSA-2012-0036-
 buses with gross vehicle        210 tests with the      0042 (school
 weight rating (GVWR) >10,000    FAD in the driver's     bus), NHTSA-
 lb.                             seat on two school      2012-0036-0043
                                 buses and a             (school bus),
                                 motorcoach.             NHTSA-2012-0036
                                                         -0044
                                                         (Motorcoach).
Indicant testing on passenger   Full-scale FMVSS No.
 vehicles.                       210 tests on
                                 passenger vehicles to
                                 test body block zone
                                 concept and
                                 equivalence with the
                                 FAD.
Honda Fit (sedan).............  Simultaneous testing    NHTSA-2012-0036-
                                 with body blocks and    0036.
                                 FAD.
Mitsubishi I-Miev (subcompact)  Simultaneous testing    NHTSA-2012-0036-
                                 with body blocks and    0046.
                                 FA.
Chevy Suburban (MPV/sports      Simultaneous testing    NHTSA-2012-0036-
 utility vehicle (SUV)).         with body blocks and    0040.
                                 FAD.
Ford Fusion (sedan)...........  Matched pair testing    NHTSA-2012-0036-
Ford Fusion (sedan)...........   with body blocks and    0034, NHTSA-
                                 FAD.                    2012-0036-0035.
Ford C-Max (sedan)............  Matched pair testing    NHTSA-2012-0036-
Ford C-Max (sedan)............   with body blocks and    0033, NHTSA-
                                 FAD.                    2012-0036-0045.
Subaru Impreza (compact)......  Matched pair testing    NHTSA-2012-0036-
Subaru Impreza (compact)......   with body blocks and    0037, NHTSA-
                                 FAD.                    2012-0036-0039.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Research Docketed With the NPRM

    The research docketed with the NPRM consisted of materials and 
reports relating to the development and evaluation of the FAD, 
including extensive full-scale FMVSS No. 210 tests to determine whether 
the FAD performs equivalently to the existing body blocks.
    NHTSA contracted with the engineering consulting firm KARCO 
Engineering (Karco) to design, manufacturer, and test a new FMVSS No. 
210 test device.\28\ Karco also developed the procedure for positioning 
the FAD in the vehicle seat and assessed the repeatability of the 
positioning procedure. As explained in the NPRM, three different 
laboratory technicians were able to place a FAD in a specific test 
vehicle so that the predetermined measuring points were within \1/4\ 
inches (6.35 mm) of the same point of the same FAD in the same test 
vehicle placed by the other technicians. FMVSS No. 208, S10.4.2.1, 
specifies a \1/2\ in. (12.7 mm) tolerance for the H-point, so a \1/4\ 
in. (6.35 mm) variability for seating the FAD can be considered 
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ NHTSA-2012-0036-0002 (``Final Report: Development of a 
Combination Upper Torso and Pelvic Body Block for FMVSS 210 Test, 
Revision A,'' May 22, 2003, KARCO Engineering, LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also assessed the repeatability of the forces applied to the 
seat belt anchorages in the FMVSS No. 210 anchorage strength test using 
the FAD.\29\ 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. The test configuration was set 
up in a generic configuration to minimize variability. A FAD1 was 
positioned, belted, and pulled per the proposed FMVSS No. 210 test 
procedure. This test was repeated four times, and 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 to assess the 
repeatability of the test results and to rate the channels based on 
established CV acceptance criteria. The data and analysis presented in 
the repeatability analysis demonstrate that the forces applied to the 
seat belt anchor points by the FAD using the FMVSS No. 210 procedure 
are repeatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ NHTSA-2012-0036-0002 (``Repeatability Analysis of the Force 
Applied to Safety Belt Anchors Using the Force Application Device 
(May 2009)''). KARCO also assessed the repeatability of the forces 
recorded at the seat belt anchorages and compared these to the 
forces recorded with the current body blocks. See supra note 15, 
KARCO Final Report. However, this force repeatability study did not 
adhere strictly to the proposed test procedure, so NHTSA conducted a 
new analysis (discussed in the next paragraph) that did strictly 
adhere to the proposed test procedure. See NPRM at 19157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA then conducted full-scale FMVSS No. 210 anchorage strength 
tests (``indicant tests'' \30\) on nine vehicles: six passenger cars, 
an 11-passenger van, a

[[Page 76243]]

minivan with stow-and-go seating, and an F-150 SuperCab pickup 
truck.\31\ The purpose of the tests was to determine whether the FAD 
performed equivalently to the existing body blocks, and to evaluate the 
overall performance and usability of the FADs. Every seat in each 
vehicle was tested; seats in the same row were tested simultaneously. 
The FAD1, FAD2, and the body blocks (pelvic and torso) were positioned 
in adjacent seating positions, with the FAD1 in the left seat, the 
current upper torso and pelvic body blocks in the right seat, and the 
FAD2 in the center seat (if present). The FADs were positioned using 
the proposed seating procedure.\32\ There were no test failures. The 
testing also showed some advantages of the FAD compared to the current 
body blocks: the FADs were easier to position, and the hydraulic test 
load application cylinders were less likely to bottom out when testing 
seating positions with load limiters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ We use the term ``indicant'' test, as opposed to 
``compliance'' test, because NHTSA was not testing these vehicles to 
determine whether they comply with the standard.
    \31\ NHTSA-2012-0036-0002 (test reports for each indicant test).
    \32\ With respect to the body blocks, neither the standard nor 
the laboratory test procedure currently specifies precisely where on 
the vehicle seat the body blocks should be positioned, so the 
laboratory technicians had no procedure to follow for this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Research Docketed in 2018

    After the SNPRM was published in 2015, the agency conducted 
research to develop the body block zones and to further evaluate the 
FAD. There were three phases of this research and NHTSA docketed the 
research in 2018.
    The first phase of research involved indicant anchorage strength 
tests on nine vehicles (described below) with the FAD and/or the body 
blocks.\33\ This testing had two purposes. One was to validate a 
preliminary zone concept for the initial positioning (at preload) of 
the existing pelvic and torso body blocks. The other purpose was to 
respond to concerns voiced by commenters to the NPRM. The nine indicant 
tests previously performed to develop the NPRM involved testing the FAD 
and body blocks simultaneously in the same vehicle. Commenters to the 
NPRM stated that this testing might not accurately represent the 
performance of the seat belt assembly anchorages in an actual 
compliance test, which would use (if the FAD were adopted as proposed) 
only the FAD. To address this concern, in this phase of research NHTSA 
performed some of the indicant tests with only the FAD or only the body 
blocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ NHTSA-2012-0036-0035 (Ford Fusion), NHTSA-2012-0036-0034 
(Ford Fusion), NHTSA-2012-0036-0037 (Subaru Impreza), NHTSA-2012-
0036-0039 (Subaru Impreza), NHTSA-2012-0036-0033 (Ford C-Max), 
NHTSA-2012-0036-0040 (Chevrolet Suburban), NHTSA-2012-0036-0036 
(Ford Fusion), NHTSA-2012-0036-0045 (Ford C-Max), NHTSA-2012-0036-
0046 (Mitsubishi I-Miev).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all vehicles, only the rear seating positions were tested, 
because the vehicles NHTSA had that were readily available for testing 
only had rear seating positions that were viable for testing. The FADs 
were positioned using the seating procedure proposed in the NPRM. The 
body blocks were positioned using a preliminary zone concept based on 
the positioning procedure for the torso body block used in the quasi-
static test for lap/shoulder seat belts on school buses in FMVSS No. 
222.\34\ The body blocks were subjected to a preload of 1,335 N. This 
mirrors the current FMVSS No. 210 laboratory test procedure for the 
body blocks, which specifies a preload of 10% of the target load (1,335 
N is ten percent of the full test load specified in FMVSS No. 210 for 
the lap and shoulder portions of a Type 2 seat belt assembly).\35\ The 
position of the torso body block was then adjusted, if necessary, so 
that the origin of the body block radius at any point across the body 
block thickness was within the zone. To investigate the commenters' 
concerns about testing the FAD and body blocks simultaneously in the 
same vehicle, we tested three matched pairs of vehicles (Fusion, C-Max, 
and Impreza). One vehicle in each pair was tested with only the body 
blocks, and the other vehicle in the pair was tested with only the FAD. 
In the other three vehicles, NHTSA tested the body blocks and FAD 
simultaneously in the rear outboard seats (with the FAD in one seat and 
the body blocks in the other seat). There were no failures in any of 
these tests. This testing showed that the zones were viable and that 
they would not have to be unreasonably large.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See SNPRM at pg. 11151. The procedure generally followed 
the FMVSS No. 222 procedure except that the D-ring is used as the 
reference point instead of the TBAH. For more information, see the 
docketed test reports. As noted earlier, neither the standard nor 
the laboratory test procedure currently specifies precisely where on 
the vehicle seat the body blocks should be positioned. For this 
testing, the pelvic body block was typically positioned (prior to 
application of the preload force) such that the centerline of the 
block and the centerline of the seat were aligned with the back of 
the block in contact with the seat back.
    \35\ Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS 210 Seat Belt Assembly 
Anchorages. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (TP-210-09) (Feb. 7, 1994), pg. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second phase of research involved development, testing, and 
validation to establish practicable and repeatable zones for the 
preload positioning of the pelvic and torso body blocks.\36\ The first 
phase of testing referred to immediately above served as a proof of 
concept for the zones. In this second phase of research, the agency 
developed zones that would be valid for a wide range of vehicles and 
vehicle types. The agency first determined the factors affecting the 
position of the body blocks at preload, using a generic test fixture, 
and used this information to refine the procedure for positioning the 
body blocks at preload. This refined procedure was used to apply a 
preload force to the body blocks in five different passenger vehicles 
(ranging in size from a subcompact to SUVs) with a variety of seat and 
belt configurations as well as the generic test fixture. Several 
different parameters (e.g., with and without a wooden positioning 
fixture for the torso block, preload force \37\) were systematically 
varied to reflect the full range of conditions that might affect the 
position of the blocks at preload. The tests were conducted in the left 
outboard and center seats (all tested DSPs had Type 2 belts). This 
resulted in a total of 125 tests. The agency recorded the position of 
the torso and pelvic body blocks at preload for each test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The research summarized here is explained in more detail in 
the docketed report ``Development of Positioning Zones for FMVSS No. 
210 Body Blocks'' (NHTSA-2012-0036-0041).
    \37\ One of the test parameters the study systematically varied 
was the preload force. The study measured the body block target 
locations with preload forces of 1,335 N and 2,224 N. The laboratory 
test procedure has long specified that the preload be ten percent of 
the target (test) load. The former preload is ten percent of the 
test load for the lap and shoulder portions of a Type 2 seat belt 
assembly, and the latter preload is ten percent of the test load for 
Type 1 seat belt assemblies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This data set was then mathematically expanded in two ways. First, 
because the outboard seat tests were conducted only in the left seating 
position, and because center seating positions can have the shoulder 
belt on either the left or right side, this data did not represent the 
full range of target positions for all seating locations. Therefore, 
additional data points were calculated for right outboard seating 
positions and center seating positions with the shoulder belt over the 
occupant's right shoulder by ``mirroring'' the Y-coordinate values. 
These ``mirrored'' locations represent the right outboard seating 
positions and center seating positions with the shoulder belt over the 
occupant's right shoulder. Second, the zones (including the mirrored 
data points) were expanded to four standard deviations in the X, Y, and 
Z directions. This expansion of the zones was intended to allow for 
vehicle configurations not evaluated in the study and future vehicle 
designs. The result (with the

[[Page 76244]]

coordinates of the vertices rounded up to the nearest 5 mm for ease of 
use) is the zones specified in this final rule. The precise locations 
of the zones are specified in relation to the SgRP. The dimensions of 
the zones are summarized in Table 2 (Table 1 of the regulatory text) 
and Figure 6 in the regulatory text provides a depiction of the body 
block zones.

                                       Table 2--Body Block Zone Dimensions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Zone                                  Depth (mm)      Width (mm)      Height (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pelvic Body Block...............................................             205             340             145
Torso Body Block................................................             240             530             245
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two additional steps were taken to further validate the zones. 
First, an indicant test was carried out on two DSPs in the second row 
of a Ford Freestar minivan with the body blocks at the longitudinal 
extremes of the positions recorded in the fleet study.\38\ This test 
was used to examine if the location of the body block at these extremes 
had an effect on the seat belt anchorages meeting the load requirements 
of FMVSS No. 210. The blocks were positioned in the zones and the test 
was successfully run, with no failures. Second, the zones were 
validated in heavy-duty vehicles.\39\ The fleet study used to develop 
the zones involved only light-duty vehicles, the largest of which was a 
Ford Freestar. The agency verified the zones in two school bus seats 
and one motorcoach seat. The tested seats are commonly used on large 
(GVWRs greater than 10,000 pounds) buses and motorcoaches. Each seat 
had three DSPs. NHTSA applied the preload force and verified that the 
body blocks could be positioned in the zones at each of these DSPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ ``Development of Positioning Zones for FMVSS No. 210 Body 
Blocks,'' pp. 39-46.
    \39\ Id. at pgs. 47-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third phase of research involved indicant tests with the FAD on 
buses with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). The 
indicant tests using the FAD docketed with and discussed in the NPRM 
were on passenger vehicles with GVWRs of less than 10,000 lb. 
Commenters to the NPRM noted that, at the time the NPRM was published, 
NHTSA had not tested any heavy-duty vehicles using the FAD and 
expressed concerns about whether the FAD would perform equivalently to 
the body blocks in heavy-duty applications (see section V.A.4 below). 
The objective of the additional indicant testing with the FAD on these 
buses was to determine whether the FAD affects the stringency of the 
anchorage strength test on heavy duty vehicle seats and to assess how 
the FAD performs in these tests. The agency performed three indicant 
tests with the FAD in the driver's seat of three different buses: A 
school bus with a pedestal-type seat; \40\ a school bus with an air 
suspension seat; \41\ and a motorcoach with an air suspension seat.\42\ 
The tests were conducted with the driver's seats installed in the 
buses, using the proposed FAD positioning procedures. All the seat belt 
anchorages tested met the FMVSS No. 210 performance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ NHTSA-2012-0036-0043 (FAD Testing on IC School Bus).
    \41\ NHTSA-2012-0036-0042 (FAD Testing on Blue Bird School Bus).
    \42\ NHTSA-2012-0036-0044 (FAD Testing on MCI Motorcoach).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Final Rule and Response to Comments

A. Force Application Device \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The comments summarized in this section were to the NPRM 
unless otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. FAD Design
i. Durability and Strength of FADs
    The NPRM anticipated that the FAD would have a long service life 
because it consists of components (a polyurethane shell, aluminum 
structural components, and aluminum and steel peripheral attachments) 
that should not experience appreciable wear.
Comments
    Daimler Trucks North America LLC (DTNA), the Truck and Engine 
Manufacturers Association (EMA), and the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers (Alliance) \44\ brought up concerns about the how durable 
the FAD would be if tested to failure. FMVSS No. 210 does not require 
testing the seat belt assembly anchorages to failure nor does the 
agency conduct tests to failure. However, these commenters noted that 
after ensuring compliance with the FMVSS No. 210 requirements 
manufacturers normally continue to load the anchorages to failure. EMA 
stated that testing to failure provides crucial data regarding the 
compliance margin and ultimate strength of the seat belt assembly 
anchorages. EMA's concern is that it is unknown whether the FADs are 
strong enough to withstand this testing and that if test engineers 
must, after proving compliance, replace the FAD with body blocks to 
test to failure, it would increase the cost and accuracy of testing. 
DTNA similarly stated that due to the lack of experience with the 
construction and durability of the FAD it is unknown whether it will 
withstand the destructive testing that manufacturers perform to 
evaluate the ultimate strength of the seat belt anchorages. The 
Alliance also stated it was concerned with the long-term durability of 
the polyurethane shell, especially given the lack of any data or 
analysis regarding the durability of this test device at the elevated 
loading conditions typical of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) 
compliance testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ After NHTSA received comments from the Association of 
Global Automakers and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, they 
merged to form the Alliance for Automotive Innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    The agency does not perform or require tests to failure for the 
seat belt assembly anchorages. While we understand manufacturer 
concerns, the agency is not willing to research the FAD's material 
strength for testing that goes beyond our performance requirements. 
While we have not found any evidence of wear on the FADs used for our 
research, we cannot predict if testing to failure with the FADs will 
result in a shorter service life than we predicted for our compliance 
test requirements, particularly since the failure level would vary for 
every anchorage design.
    If the vehicle manufacturer is concerned about the durability of 
the FAD when testing anchorages to failure, the manufacturer has the 
option to certify compliance using the current body blocks.
ii. FAD Material and Potential Seat Belt Slippage
    The FADs consist of an upper torso portion and a pelvic portion 
hinged together to form a single device. The

[[Page 76245]]

torso and pelvic portion are manufactured from a smooth polyurethane 
material. The lap belt would be positioned over the pelvic portion of 
the FAD, and if applicable, the shoulder belt would be positioned 
across the FAD's torso portion.
Comments
    EMA, DTNA, the Alliance, Navistar, Inc. (Navistar), and the 
People's Republic of China were concerned about the potential for the 
FAD to allow the seat belt (or the material that is used to replace the 
seat belt) to slip during testing, resulting in an invalid test. EMA 
commented that while the current body blocks are covered with foam that 
secures the seat belt in place, the FADs are made of smooth 
polyurethane that may allow the belt to slip. The Alliance similarly 
stated that the FADs do not guide the webbing like the current body 
blocks. DTNA commented that the belt might slip in heavy truck testing 
due to the unique seating and seat belt systems (e.g., air suspension 
seats have a more upright seating configuration and tethers to anchor 
the seat belts to the cab structure). Navistar was also concerned about 
the validity of the test if the torso belt slipped off the FAD.
Agency Response
    The agency did not encounter any problems with the seat belts 
slipping off the FADs in any of the testing conducted, including 
indicant tests on fifteen light vehicles and three heavy vehicle driver 
seats. In fact, NHTSA did not observe any significant movement of the 
seat belt on the FAD during any tests, so we do not see this slippage 
as a potential source for seat belt webbing damage. If the seat belt 
slid off or over the FAD during a compliance test it would be 
considered an invalid test, not a non-compliance. The commenters 
provided no data to support their concerns for seat belt slippage when 
the FAD is used. Therefore, the agency does not anticipate that this 
slippage will be a problem in future compliance tests or testing 
manufacturers may conduct for self-certification.
iii. Weight of the FADs
    The NPRM stated that the FAD1 weighs 55.79 kg (123 lb) and the FAD2 
weighs 27.55 kg (47.5 lb). For comparison, the weight of the current 
body blocks varies depending on the material with which they are 
fabricated and the design of the torso body block. As noted earlier, 
the standard does not specify the type of material. NHTSA's 
understanding, based on its test experience, is that the torso body 
blocks can weigh approximately 7.7 kg (17 lb) to 13.6 kg (30 lb) 
depending on the design type (see discussion in section V.B.7.a) and 
material (aluminum and/or steel). The standard pelvic body block weighs 
approximately 37.9 kg (83.5 lb), and the optional pelvic body block for 
inboard seating positions weighs approximately 19.5 kg (43 lb), when 
made from aluminum.
Comments
    Navistar, the Association of Global Automakers (Global), and 
Freedman Seating Company (FSC) commented that the increased weight of 
the FADs compared to the current body blocks could make it difficult to 
use. For example, Navistar commented that the FADs are significantly 
heavier than the current body blocks, so installing, positioning, and 
removing the FADs could cause some issues. FSC stated that it requires 
one person for every 50 lb to lift items, so three people would be 
required to lift the FAD1 in and out of the vehicle. FSC also stated 
that it is nearly impossible for a mechanical assistant to help 
position the FADs in a vehicle and that tight-quartered vehicles with 
four rear rows would probably be the most difficult platform to 
position the FADs. FSC also stated it was concerned about possible 
injuries (back injuries and strains from lifting) to lab technicians 
from positioning the FADs.
Agency Response
    In its testing, NHTSA found that that the FAD was easier to use 
than the body blocks. For example, NHTSA found that the FADs generally 
require one installation attempt while the current body blocks may 
require multiple attempts, possibly with a technician holding the block 
as the preload is applied, because the torso block must maintain its 
position in the specified zone during preload. While we acknowledge 
that the FAD1 is heavier than the combined weight of the current body 
blocks, during NHTSA's testing it rarely took more than one technician 
to place the FAD1 in and out of the vehicle. NHTSA also did not 
encounter any problem with placing the FADs in tight-quartered 
vehicles, such as the third row of the Chevrolet Suburban and Chevy 
Express small bus. We acknowledge that test laboratories may have 
specific policies that prohibit one person from lifting a certain 
amount of weight, and that whether one technician could place the FAD 
in a seat would depend on the individual's strength, but we suspect 
that test laboratories encounter the same issue with anthropomorphic 
test device dummies, which are, in some cases, significantly heavier 
than the FAD1; for example, the Hybrid III (HIII) 50th male ATD weighs 
approximately 170 pounds.
iv. Dimensions of the FADs
    The NPRM included a table that summarized the dimensions of the 
FAD1 and FAD2, and, for comparison, the dimensions of the HIII test 
dummies representing the 50th percentile adult male, 10-year-old child, 
and the 5th percentile adult female.\45\ The FAD1's dimensions most 
closely resembled that of the 50th percentile adult male and the FAD2's 
dimensions were less than that of the 10-year-old child test dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 77 FR 19155, 19156 (March 30, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    In response to the NPRM, Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) acknowledged 
the need to use the FAD2 for designated seating positions too narrow to 
accommodate the FAD1 but commented that the shoulder height for the 
FAD2 is exceptionally low, creating unrealistic load vectors that will 
negatively impact seating designs and configurations. JCI suggested 
that if the FAD2 is intended to replicate a small child, it should be 
seated in a child or booster seat to create real-world load vectors, 
and if it is intended to replicate a small adult that the agency should 
reference databases such as UMTRI to aid in the development of the test 
device.
    In response to the SNPRM, an individual (Jung HoYoo) commented that 
t the safety of average female drivers and passengers would be better 
addressed by using another FAD that represents the 50th percentile 
adult female, because the FAD2 represents the weight/size of 
approximately half of a 50th percentile male.
Agency Response
    NHTSA acknowledges that the placement of the seat belt may not be 
ideal for some seat belt configurations with the FAD2, but our research 
has not indicated that the use of the FAD2 is problematic or that it 
impacts the test results negatively. None of the research tests 
conducted with the FAD2 resulted in a test failure. For further 
discussion of the load vectors, see section V.A.4.
    The FAD2 was developed to be used at designated seating positions 
that are too narrow to accommodate the FAD1, when multiple seating 
positions must be tested simultaneously, such as some inboard seats in 
the rear rows of passenger cars and MPVs. The FAD2 was not modeled 
after a particular Hybrid III ATD or occupant category (e.g., 50th 
percentile adult female) but rather a scaled-down FAD1 to fit narrow

[[Page 76246]]

designated seating positions. The NPRM explained that the FAD2's 
shoulder pivot height, shoulder breadth, and hip breadth is 60%, 71%, 
and 66% of the 50th percentile male's, respectively. Therefore, the 
individual commenter's concern that the FAD2 represents an occupant 
half the size of a 50th percentile male is inaccurate. The weight of 
the FADs cannot be used to infer representation of a particular Hybrid 
III ATD or occupant category because the FADs do not have lower legs, 
arms, or heads. The intent of FMVSS No. 210 is to assess the 
performance of the seat belt assembly anchorages, not to measure the 
forces imparted to a vehicle occupant in a crash, so test devices that 
represent a range of occupant sizes are not necessary.
    If the vehicle manufacturer is concerned about the performance of 
the seat or seat belt assembly anchorages when tested with the FAD2, 
the manufacturer has the option to certify compliance using the current 
body blocks.
v. FAD Abdomen Area
    The FAD developed by Karco was designed with a pelvic area 
consisting of a molded protrusion to facilitate placement of the lap 
belt; the protrusion is the polyurethane part between the aluminum 
structural pieces that connect the upper and lower portions of the FAD. 
NHTSA observed in early indicant testing during development of the FAD 
that the aluminum connecting pieces were causing damage to the belt 
webbing.
    To prevent webbing damage, NHTSA developed hip clips. The hip clips 
evolved over several design iterations. The initial design version of 
the hip clips consisted of a metal piece that prevented the aluminum 
connecting pieces from damaging the seat belt webbing. However, in one 
of the agency's first indicant tests, the initial version of the hip 
clips damaged the belt, resulting in the belt breaking.\46\ 
Accordingly, the agency redesigned the hip clips to have smoother edges 
to prevent belt breakage. A prototype version of the redesigned hip 
clips was installed in the FADs for the remainder of the agency's 
research tests; no belt damage was observed with the redesigned hip 
clips. The hip clip specifications docketed with the NPRM \47\ differ 
slightly from the prototype version of the redesigned hip clips; the 
hip clips in the proposed drawing are angled to further prevent the 
seat belt from riding up and they specify stronger and bigger hardware 
for attachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ FMVSS No. 207 Indicant Test, General Motors Corp., 2006 
Chevrolet Express Bus, NHTSA No. C60100, pp 40-72. General Testing 
Laboratories, Inc. May 2, 2006 (Report No. 207-GTL-05-009).
    \47\ NHTSA-2012-0036-0002; Drawings NVS221-210-16B (pg. 1016), 
NVS221-210-18-B (pg. 1017), NVS221-210-16J-B (pg. 1042), and NVS221-
210-18J-B (pg. 1043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    The Alliance and JCI referenced an indicant test on the 2006 
Chevrolet Express Bus in which the initial design version of the hip 
clips damaged the seat belt webbing. The Alliance commented that it was 
concerned that even with the redesigned hip clips the FAD's pelvic/
torso intersection is not biofidelic and there is a risk of cutting the 
webbing which is non-representative of field performance. It also 
questioned whether the pivot point between the torso and pelvis is 
required. JCI similarly recommended redesigning the hip clip.\48\ The 
People's Republic of China also commented on the potential for the FAD 
to damage the seat belt webbing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ JCI referred to the ``contour abdomen plate,'' which we 
construe as referring to the hip clips because JCI referenced a 
picture of the webbing damage caused by the hip clips in the 2006 
Chevrolet Express Bus indicant test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    The redesigned hip clips are intended to prevent damage to the seat 
belt by improving the biofidelity of the pelvic/torso intersection to 
the extent possible. While it is not perfectly biofidelic, the nine 
research tests with the redesigned hip clips, docketed with the NPRM, 
and nine research tests conducted by the agency since the NPRM, have 
not shown damage to the webbing of the seat belt. However, we believe 
that the design of the prototype hip clip needed improvement, and 
accordingly modified the design presented in the proposal. We believe 
the redesigned hip clips function as intended. Regarding whether the 
existing pivot point between the torso and pelvis portions is 
necessary, the agency believes a pivot point is necessary to properly 
position the FAD in the seat. Different seat designs and seat contours 
will require the ability to pivot the torso and pelvis to properly 
position the FAD.
vi. Bridged Pull Yoke
    The FAD consists of an upper torso portion and a pelvic portion 
hinged together to form a one-piece device. Where the force actuator 
attaches to the FAD depends on the seat belt type. For Type 2 seat 
belts, the force actuator is connected to separate connection points on 
the torso and pelvis portions of the FAD. For Type 1 seat belts, a 
bridged pull yoke is used to connect the connection points of the torso 
and lap portions of the FAD (so that they are jointly pulled) and the 
force actuator is connected to this pull yoke. The proposed regulatory 
text defined the ``bridged pull yoke'' as the yoke that bridges the 
torso and pelvis on the FAD1 or FAD2 to apply the required force to a 
Type 1 seat belt assembly.
Comments
    The Alliance suggested the bridged pull yoke be redesigned to 
prevent it from digging into the seat cushion, which introduces an 
unintended load path into the system. It cited the indicant test with 
the 2005 Chrysler Town and Country Minivan as evidence.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ FMVSS No. 207 Indicant Test, Daimler Chrysler Corporation, 
2005 Chrysler Town and Country Minivan MPV, NHTSA No. C50310, p. 28. 
General Testing Laboratories, Inc. May 2, 2006 (Report No. 207-GTL-
05-006), Figure 5.20, pg. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    The agency conducted four indicant tests (totaling six seating 
positions) with a FAD1 or FAD2 fitted with the bridged pull yoke on a 
Type 1 belt. To investigate the Alliance's concern, NHTSA re-examined 
these indicant tests. One was the indicant test cited by the Alliance 
with the 2005 Chrysler Town and Country Minivan, in which a third-row 
center seat with a Type 1 belt was tested with a FAD2 fitted with the 
bridged pull yoke.\50\ The test photos do not clearly depict the 
interaction of the FAD2 and the seat cushion. (A video was not recorded 
for this test.) Therefore, NHTSA is unable to conclude whether the 
bridged pull yoke dug into the seat. A second test was the indicant 
test with the 2005 Ford F-150, in which a front inboard seat was tested 
with a FAD2 with a bridged pull yoke.\51\ The pull yoke did not appear 
to dig into the seat in a way that would interfere with the test 
because it was near the edge of the seat cushion. To the extent that 
this circumstance did present an issue during a test, the pull angle or 
chain could potentially be adjusted to alleviate it. The third indicant 
test was on a 2000 MCI 102-EL3 Series Motorcoach in which a driver's 
seat was tested with a FAD1 with a bridged pull yoke.\52\ The pull yoke 
did not appear to

[[Page 76247]]

dig into the seat. The fourth indicant test involved a 2006 Chevrolet 
Express Bus in which we tested an inboard seat in the third, fourth, 
and fifth rows with the bridged pull yoke on a FAD2.\53\ The pull yoke 
did not appear to dig into the seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ FMVSS No. 207 Indicant Test, Daimler Chrysler Corporation, 
2005 Chrysler Town and Country Minivan MPV, NHTSA No. C50310, pg. 
28. General Testing Laboratories, Inc. May 2, 2006 (Report No. 207-
GTL-05-006).
    \51\ FMVSS No. 207 Indicant Test, Ford Motor Co. 2005 Ford F-150 
Pickup Truck, NHTSA No. C50210, pgs. 18-28.
    \52\ Using New Force Application Device on Heavy Duty Vehicle 
Seats, Research Supporting FMVSS No. 210 Rulemaking, pgs. 13-15. MGA 
Research Corp., Sept. 11, 2013 (Report No. .207/210-MGA-2013-001).
    \53\ FMVSS No. 207 Indicant Test, General Motors Corp., 2006 
Chevrolet Express Bus, NHTSA No. C60100, pgs. 40-72. General Testing 
Laboratories, Inc. May 2, 2006 (Report No. 207-GTL-05-009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the Alliance's concern, NHTSA has decided not to 
redesign the bridged pull yoke. With respect to the FAD2, we 
acknowledge that while the pelvic portion of the FAD1 usually extends 
to the front edge of the seat, the pelvis of the FAD2 is not as long as 
the pelvis of the FAD1. Therefore, the bridged pull yoke could possibly 
dig into the seat if the seat cushion is soft. However, the test report 
cited by the Alliance does not clearly show that this is the case. 
Moreover, none of the test reports noted this as an issue. We also note 
that even if it were to be an issue, it would not arise frequently 
because all rear DSPs under 10,000 pounds (except side-facing seats) 
are required to have Type 2 belts. In any case, if this is a concern 
for a manufacturer, it can certify to the body block compliance option. 
Therefore, the agency declines to implement a redesign of the bridged 
pull yoke.
vii. Clarifying Attachment to Force Actuator
    The type of seat belt dictates where the force actuator attaches to 
the FAD. For Type 2 seat belts, the force actuator is connected to 
separate connection points on the torso and lap portions of the FAD. 
The actuator is connected to the torso via a torso pull yoke; 
specifically, the actuator is connected to the eye bolt attached to the 
pull bracket.\54\ The actuator is connected to the pelvis via a through 
hole on the pelvis.\55\ For Type 1 seat belts, the force actuator is 
connected to a bridged pull-yoke that is used to connect the attachment 
points of the torso and lap portions of the FAD (so that they are 
jointly pulled). The drawing package docketed with the NPRM included a 
single drawing labeled ``FAD 2--Bridged Pull Yoke.'' The bridged pull 
yoke is attached to the eye bolt and through hole of the FAD and the 
test load is applied to the second through hole on the bridged pull 
yoke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Drawings NHTSA221-210-04 (FAD 1--TORSO PULL YOKE) and 
NHTSA221-210-04J (FAD 2--TORSO PULL YOKE).
    \55\ Drawings NHTSA221-210-02 (FAD 1--BODY--PELVIS) and 
NHTSA221-210-02J (FAD 2--BODY--PELVIS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulatory text did not clearly identify where the 
actuator would be connected to the FAD. For Type 2 seat belts, the 
regulatory text specified that the test forces should be applied ``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.'' For Type 1 seat belts, 
the regulatory text stated that the forces should be applied ``to the 
bridged pull yoke.''
Comments
    EvoBus GmbH (EvoBus) \56\ commented that either the regulatory text 
or the drawings should be revised to clearly identify where the forces 
are to be applied, and that the bridged pull yoke should be explicitly 
marked to ease the understanding and preparation of the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ After receiving comments from EvoBus they became Daimler 
Buses GmbH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    NHTSA has modified the proposed regulatory text and drawings to 
make them clearer. The regulatory text has been modified to use the 
same part names used in the design drawings (e.g., eye bolt). We also 
modified the bridged pull yoke drawing to clarify the attachment points 
for the torso, pelvis, and actuator. Because the same bridged pull yoke 
is used for the FAD 1 as is used for the FAD 2, we have added a drawing 
for the bridge pull yoke (NHTSA221-210-27) to the finalized drawing 
package for the FAD 1. There is a drawing (NHTSA221-210-27J) depicting 
the bridged pull yoke in the drawing package for the FAD2.
    However, we are not specifying exactly how the actuator will be 
attached to these parts of the FAD because this piece of laboratory 
equipment could vary (e.g., different chains or other material could be 
used to transfer the required load) depending, for example, on whether 
seat belt anchorage strength testing is performed to failure (as some 
commenters indicated they do) or testing just to FMVSS No. 210 
performance requirements. This is consistent with the current 
specification of the body blocks in the standard, which also do not 
specify how the actuator is attached to the body blocks.
viii. Human Form Design
    The NPRM stated that one of the advantages of the FAD is that it is 
more representative of the human form than the upper torso and pelvic 
body blocks. We also identified other advantages of the FAD over the 
body blocks. We noted that the FAD geometry does not put an unrealistic 
bending force on the belt buckle, and that the FAD does not have sharp 
edges, reducing the likelihood that the seat belt will break during 
testing. We also noted that the FAD does not result in as much seat 
belt spool-out as seen with the body blocks, thereby eliminating the 
problem of bottoming-out the hydraulic cylinders during the test, and 
that the FAD should be easier and quicker to position than the body 
block, potentially decreasing test costs.
Comments
    EMA, DTNA, and an individual commenter to the SNPRM (Jung Ho Yoo) 
commented that the NPRM did not justify why the human form design would 
be an advantage for compliance testing. EMA stated that the scope of 
FMVSS No. 210 only includes seat belt anchorages and that the seat 
belts that contact vehicle occupants are regulated by FMVSS No. 209, 
``Seat belt assemblies,'' \57\ and that because the anchorage strength 
test does not require use of the seat belt, any potential advantages 
related to belt breakage may not be relevant. EMA also stated that 
NHTSA failed to explain why the FAD transfers test loads any more 
effectively than the body blocks. DTNA similarly commented that 
resemblance to the human form may not be relevant when testing strength 
of seat belt anchorages which do not come into contact with occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ EMA referenced FMVSS No. 208, but we understand it to have 
meant FMVSS No. 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    NHTSA agrees that the NPRM was not clear on this point. We clarify 
that we believe that the human form design is advantageous in that its 
more realistic features decrease the risk of problematic interactions 
between the test device and the belt/vehicle. We also note that the 
human form of the FADs could allow for testing of future seat belt 
designs with unconventional seat belt geometries (such as four-point 
and five-point seat belts) that cannot be accommodated by the current 
body blocks. Primarily, however, we believe that the advantages of the 
FAD will be related to ease and repeatability of testing. The agency 
believes that the FAD resolves many existing test-related issues with 
the body blocks. The docketed test reports note several advantages of 
the FAD. It does not put an unrealistic bending force on the belt 
buckle, unlike the pelvic body block. The FAD lacks the sharp edges of 
the pelvic body block,

[[Page 76248]]

which reduces the likelihood of the seat belt buckle or webbing 
material (or the material used to replace the seat belt webbing during 
testing) breaking during testing. In addition, the current body blocks 
move independently of each other, and the agency's test laboratories 
have indicated that sometimes the increased range of motion associated 
with the torso body block can be problematic (e.g., the hydraulic 
cylinders used to pull the belts can reach the end of their stroke). As 
EMA noted, FMVSS No. 210 does not require testing with the vehicle's 
seat belt. Therefore, a shorter substitute belt or cable could be used 
to solve the problem of reaching the end of the stroke of the loading 
devices. Using a shorter substitute belt or cable also alleviates the 
problem with seat belt buckle breakage. However, for simplicity, the 
agency prefers conducting the compliance testing, if possible, with the 
vehicle's original seat belt assembly. Other benefits of the FADs are 
discussed elsewhere in this document.
ix. Effect on Seat Back Deformation
    The NPRM did not specifically address whether there was the 
potential for the FAD to interact with the seat structure in a way that 
could affect test outcomes.
Comments
    T[Uuml]V Rheinland Kraftfahrt GmbH (TUEV) and JCI had concerns 
related to seat structure deformation. TUEV commented that the FAD 
could reinforce the seat structure during tests of integrated seats 
(seats with seat belts that attach to the seat), which is not 
representative of the deformation that would occur in a real accident 
and could potentially lead to different results than testing with the 
body blocks (i.e., where the anchorages would fail when tested with the 
body blocks, but pass when tested with the FAD). JCI stated that the 
FAD structure could interfere with the manufacturer's testing protocols 
that are intended to gauge backrest deformation.
Agency Response
    The agency's research tests demonstrate that the FAD pulls away 
from the seat back during testing and does not reinforce the seat 
structure. In fact, the FAD would more accurately represent the 
dynamics of an occupant in a real crash event because of its geometry: 
it hinges at the H-point and it is not two independent blocks. TUEV and 
JCI did not provide any supporting information on the protocols they 
used for gauging backrest (seat back) deformation with the FAD versus 
the body blocks, which limits our ability to respond in more detail to 
this concern.
x. Missing Tolerance Values
    The drawing packages for the FAD1 and the FAD2 were docketed in 
conjunction with the NPRM. In the NPRM, we stated that the drawing 
packages were sufficiently detailed to allow manufacturers to fabricate 
the FAD1 and FAD2.
Comments
    JCI commented that the drawing packages are incomplete due to the 
lack of tolerance designations in numerous places. They suggest that 
this incomplete information be remedied before finalizing the FAD.
Agency Response
    NHTSA has added tolerances to all dimensions specified in the 
finalized drawing package. If a tolerance is not indicated next to a 
specified dimension, an overall tolerance summary is specified at the 
bottom of the drawing page.
xi. Design Drawings and Supplemental 3-D Data
    NHTSA docketed the FAD design drawings with the NPRM. The proposed 
regulatory text incorporated these design drawings by reference. The 
agency was unable to docket the computer-aided design (CAD) files of 
the FAD drawings or three-dimensional data because the docket does not 
accept CAD files. In the past NHTSA has generally not incorporated by 
reference 3-D CAD data for FMVSS documentation or Part 572 
anthropomorphic test devices, although it has not infrequently made 3-D 
geometric rendering solid models available to the public for reference 
purposes.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See, e.g., 77 FR 11651 (Feb. 27, 2012) (final rule for 
Hybrid III 10-year-old child test dummy) (``[T]hree-dimensional 
engineering aids are available from the NHTSA website for complex 
dummy part dimensions. While these aids are not part of this 
specification, they can be used by the public for reference 
purposes.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    Both American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) and the Alliance 
suggested in their comments that the 3-D drawing data for the FAD1 and 
FAD2 be made readily available. Honda stated that the 3-D drawings were 
necessary to allow manufacturers to fully assess the proposed test 
procedures and detect potential issues that would need to be addressed 
before it is finalized. The Alliance commented that provision of the 3-
D CAD data could reduce the cost and lead-time associated with the 
procurement of the FADs.
Agency Response
    During the NPRM comment period the agency provided 3-D solid models 
of the torso and pelvis portions of the FADs to entities that requested 
them in response to the NPRM. A memo was filed in the docket 
documenting the requests and agency response.\59\ In the memos, the 
agency additionally stated that it would provide the files to others 
upon request. We received requests from, and provided the files to, MGA 
Research Corp., Faurecia, General Motors, RCO Technologies, Jasti-
Utama, Inc., and SCHAP Specialty Machine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ NHTSA-2012-0036-0003, NHTSA-2012-0036-0020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that the drawing package is sufficiently detailed to 
allow manufacturers to fabricate the FAD1 and FAD2. During development 
of the NPRM, NHTSA 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.\60\ Based upon this inspection, the agency determined 
that the devices were sufficiently equivalent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ A document describing the inspection criteria used to make 
this determination has been placed in the docket for the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the two-dimensional engineering drawings being 
incorporated by reference in the final rule, NHTSA is providing, as 
supplemental documentation, 3-D solid models. NHTSA has regenerated 
these 3-D geometric renderings by scanning our physical FADs. These 
supplemental reference materials are summarized in Table 3. These files 
are not being incorporated by reference into 49 CFR 571.5 and are 
therefore will not be part of the FAD specification. Instead, they are 
intended only for reference purposes (e.g., to facilitate fabrication). 
The files are available via NHTSA's FTP site.\61\ A memo to this effect 
is also being placed in the docket for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that some minor changes have been made to the proposed 
drawings. Some dimensions on NHTSA221-210-02 and 03 (FAD 1 Body Torso 
and FAD 1 Body Pelvis) and NHTSA221-210-02J and 03J (FAD 2 Body Torso 
and FAD 2 Body Pelvis) have been modified slightly to match the 
dimensions of the scanned 3-D solid models. The revised dimensions are 
related to the molded portions of the FADs. The hip clip drawings were 
also modified to match the redesigned hip clips that are installed on 
the FADs at

[[Page 76249]]

NHTSA's Vehicle Research Test Center (VRTC).

                 Table 3--Design Reference Documentation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Title                                 Link
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAD Drawing Package..........  https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/Seat-Belt-Assembly-Anchorages/FAD-Drawing-Package-April-2024.zip.
FAD Drawing Package--2D        https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-
 AutoCAD.                       downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/Seat-Belt-
                                Assembly-Anchorages/FAD-AutoCAD-DWG-
                                Files.zip.
FAD Drawing Package--3D        https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-
 Inventor Format.               downloadsp=nhtsa/downloads/Seat-Belt-
                                Assembly-Anchorages/FAD-Inventor-
                                Files.zip.
FAD Drawing Package--3D STEP   https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-
 Format.                        downloadsp=nhtsa/downloads/Seat-Belt-
                                Assembly-Anchorages/FAD-3D-STEP-
                                Files.zip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. FAD Test Procedure
i. Positioning Procedure
    The proposed regulatory text specified how to adjust the seat and 
position the FAD at the outset of the strength test. The proposed 
regulatory text specified that the seat back would be placed at the 
manufacturer's design seat back angle (as measured by SAE J826 (July 
1995) with the seat in its rearmost and lowest position). The NPRM 
essentially proposed that the FAD be placed so that its midsagittal 
plane is vertical and aligned with the center of the seat. Although the 
term ``Midsagittal plane'' was not defined in the proposed regulatory 
text, it is defined in FMVSS No. 208 S16.3.1.3 as ``the vertical plane 
that separates the dummy into equal left and right halves.'' The 
proposed regulatory text defined and used two different terms to refer 
to the center of the seat: ``longitudinal centerline of a forward and 
rear-facing seat'' and ``seat centerline.'' Both were defined with 
reference to the SgRP, and both essentially referred to the center of 
the seat.
Comments
    The Alliance questioned how the FADs should be placed in the seat 
if the seat centerline does not align with the SgRP. It also asked how 
the FAD should be placed in a seat with multiple designated seating 
positions when the lateral seat width is not equally designated by 
design.
Agency Response
    We first note that the NPRM inadvertently used two different terms, 
``longitudinal centerline'' and ``seat centerline,'' to refer to the 
same concept. The final rule clarifies this discrepancy by using a new 
term, ``seat reference plane,'' which is defined as ``the vertical 
plane that passes through the SgRP (as defined at 49 CFR 571.3) and is 
parallel to the direction that the seat faces.'' This is essentially 
the same procedure NHTSA intended to specify in the NPRM--namely, 
positioning the FAD so that the midsagittal plane is aligned with the 
vertical plane passing through the SgRP in the same direction the seat 
faces. We decided to use the SgRP and not the H-point for consistency 
with the proposed body block test procedure. Both Alliance's concerns 
are addressed by this definition because the SgRP does not depend on 
either the seat centerline or width. The final rule also adds a 
definition of ``midsagittal plane'' specific to the FAD because the 
definition of it in FMVSS No. 208 refers to a test ``dummy.''
    We also note that the final rule modifies the proposed seat 
adjustment. In the NPRM, the agency proposed a seating procedure for 
the FAD that specified, in addition to placing the seat at the rearmost 
position, the seat back would be adjusted to the manufacturer's design 
angle and the seat to its lowest position. Now that the agency is 
reinstating the option to test with the body blocks (with a refined 
test procedure), we are making the seat adjustment provisions 
consistent with the manufacturer's SgRP, since the body block zones use 
the SgRP as the reference point. Specifically, we are adding regulatory 
text to clarify that the seat is to be adjusted to the rearmost normal 
riding or driving position, to make the H-point position consistent 
with the SgRP. The rearmost normal riding or driving position is 
specified by the manufacturer and includes all modes of seat 
adjustment, including horizontal, vertical, seat back angle, and seat 
cushion angle.
    To this end, we have added a specific regulatory text section on 
seat adjustment that applies to both the FAD and body blocks. We note 
that in the NPRM, the seat was proposed to be placed in its rearmost 
and lowest position when using the FAD, but no details were provided as 
to how such a position would be achieved. By specifying a seat position 
consistent with the SgRP, the agency is fully articulating a well-
defined seat position with which all manufacturers should be familiar. 
This information is typically already requested prior to testing by 
OVSC.
ii. Selections of FAD1 or FAD2 and Contact Between Adjacent FADs and 
Vehicle Interior
    The NPRM proposed an iterative procedure for determining which FAD 
NHTSA would use when simultaneously testing the seat belt assembly 
anchorages of adjacent seats. Specifically, the NPRM specified 
positioning FAD1s on each seat, and if, ``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.'' 
\62\ This would not have disallowed contact once the test had started 
(i.e., once the test force had begun to be applied). However, because 
the proposal simply specified that contact was not allowed ``prior to 
conducting the test,'' it was not clear whether this applied before 
and/or after the preload force was applied to the FADs. The proposal 
also did not disallow (or specify any procedures with respect to) 
contact between FADs and the vehicle interior. Finally, the proposal 
did not contemplate novel seating configuration or vehicles without a 
driver's designated seating position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ S5.3(a) (proposed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    Honda requested clarification on whether contact between FADs 
during testing is allowed. Honda also requested clarification on 
whether contact between the FAD and the vehicle interior would affect 
the selection, replacement, or seating procedure of the FAD. FSC 
similarly questioned what constituted ``contact,'' and whether this 
term referred to any part of any FAD touching another FAD, or whether

[[Page 76250]]

contact between the FADs is permitted so long as it did not interfere 
with their functionality or independent operation. FSC also inquired 
about the possibility of changing the size of the FAD1.
Agency Response
    The agency would not allow adjacent FADs to contact each other at 
all at the onset of testing, i.e., when the FADs have been positioned, 
but prior to the preload being applied. The hierarchical procedure used 
to determine which FAD to place in each seat if contact occurs during 
placement should provide ample room to eliminate contact during testing 
of the anchorages. However, although not expressly addressed in the 
regulatory text, contact between adjacent FADs once test preloads have 
begun is not prohibited. Although we believe incidental contact of the 
FADs during preload and loading is unlikely, we believe if it does 
occur the contact will not unduly influence the results and will not 
invalidate the test. Additionally, if a manufacturer is concerned about 
such incidental contact, it can choose to test with the body blocks.
    As far as contact with the vehicle interior, the agency normally 
conducts the FMVSS No. 210 compliance tests with the vehicle doors 
removed so we do not encounter contact with the vehicle interior in our 
tests of outboard seats next to a door. For outboard seats that are not 
positioned next to a door, contact may also be found permissible if it 
does not interfere with the loading of the anchorages and attaining the 
required load value. Since this determination should be made on a case-
by-case basis, and to avoid limiting the agency's testing options due 
to inconsequential contact of the FAD with the vehicle interior, the 
regulatory text will not address this determination of permissible 
contact with the vehicle interior. This aspect of the test procedure 
may be addressed in the laboratory test procedure for FMVSS No. 210.
    The agency declines to change the size of the FAD1. The size of the 
FAD1 did not present any problems in the testing the agency conducted 
in support of this rulemaking. In any case, if a DSP is too narrow to 
accommodate the FAD1, the smaller FAD2 may be used. If, on a seat with 
multiple DSPs, each DSP is occupied by a FAD2, we believe there is 
minimal potential for contact at preload because the width of the FAD2 
at its widest point (the shoulder width) is 11.78  .05 in 
(299.2 mm  1.27 mm); based on NHTSA's experience with 
testing and knowledge of the vehicle market, this is less than the 
width of many or most DSPs. A DSP less than a foot in width would be 
exceedingly small, and smaller than the minimum required width for a 
DSP.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ The minimum DSP width (for most vehicles with a GVWR less 
than or equal to 10,000 lb) is 330 mm (13 inches). See 571.3 and 
571.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to the iterative procedure proposed to 
determine if the FAD1 or FAD2 would be used in a particular seat, 
consideration was not given at the time of the NPRM to the potential 
for novel seating configurations and vehicles without a driver's 
designated seating position. For forward and rearward facing seats, the 
final rule maintains the same overall hierarchy of prioritizing inboard 
seats for the use of the FAD2, to eliminate contact between FADs in 
adjacent seats. However, the reference to driver's side versus 
passenger side has been replaced by right-hand side versus left-hand 
side, as viewed from the direction of the seat. Additional regulatory 
text has been added to address non-forward and non-rearward facing 
seats.
iii. Use of FAD2 on Buses and Heavy-Duty Trucks
    As previously discussed, NHTSA developed the FAD2 for use at DSPs 
too narrow to accommodate the FAD1, although in the proposed seating 
procedure NHTSA would first attempt to position FAD1s in all seats.
Comments
    EvoBus commented that when testing buses, it would be preferable to 
specify use of the FAD2 for double seats because in coaches the 
situation regarding shoulder width is similar to the shoulder width in 
the rear seats of passenger cars.
    FSC noted that its standard passenger bus seat width is 17.75 
inches (45.085 cm), which is the same width as the FAD1. Based on the 
proposed seating procedure, FSC commented that most of its DSPs would 
require a FAD1 to be replaced by the FAD2 in the outboard DSP to avoid 
contact. Based on this concern, FSC questioned if it was possible to 
change the size of the FAD1.
    Navistar expressed concern regarding the potential effect on the 
test results if a FAD1 is replaced with a FAD2, because it could differ 
from what was used when testing with the current body blocks (larger 
pelvic block vs. smaller pelvic block) for a given seat. Navistar 
believes if this were the case, it would result in the need to identify 
these testing differences for each seating position and revalidation of 
these vehicles, and potentially some redesign or reengineering if this 
testing difference changes the test results.
Agency Response
    The agency declines to accept the recommended changes. NHTSA does 
not agree with the need to limit the testing of bus seats with multiple 
DSPs to testing solely with the FAD2, as suggested by EvoBus. There is 
no regulatory limit on bus seat width, so certain bus seat designs may 
allow for simultaneous testing with the FAD1 and FAD2 seated adjacent 
to each other. Therefore, rather than limit these bus seats to testing 
solely with the FAD2, the agency prefers an objective protocol for 
determining when to replace a FAD1 with a FAD2. We also decline to 
change the size of the FAD1 because the need for a smaller test device 
is met by the specification and use of the FAD2. In response to 
Navistar's comment, there is no indication that testing results differ 
depending on which FAD is used; NHTSA tested both sizes of the FAD in 
various light vehicles, and there were no test failures with either. 
With respect to heavy duty vehicles, NHTSA only tested with the FAD1, 
although the FAD2 was tested in a Chevrolet Express Bus, which, with a 
GVWR of 9,600 lb, is nearly into the heavy vehicle category. None of 
these tests resulted in failures. In addition, design margins should be 
sufficient to accommodate slight differences in force vectors between 
the FAD1 and FAD2. Nonetheless, if heavy duty manufacturers have 
vehicles for which the FAD1 does not fit under our test procedure, and 
they do not feel comfortable certifying with the FAD2, they may 
continue to use the body blocks.
iv. Bottoming Out of Hydraulic Cylinders
    Test laboratories typically use hydraulic cylinders to achieve the 
required pull force. The NPRM stated that the FAD would eliminate the 
problem of bottoming out of the hydraulic cylinders that sometimes 
occurs when performing the anchorage strength test using the current 
body blocks.
Comments
    EMA commented that the FAD may make hydraulic cylinders more likely 
to bottom out during testing of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles because 
the FAD may cause more hydraulic cylinder travel to take up the slack 
necessary to apply loads to the anchorages for suspension seats and 
seat belt assemblies using tethers.

[[Page 76251]]

Agency Response
    When the NPRM was published, NHTSA had not conducted any indicant 
tests with the FAD on heavy vehicles. The agency has since conducted 
FAD testing on two air suspension seats (one school bus driver's seat 
with a Type 2 seat belt and one motorcoach bus driver's seat with a 
Type 1 seat belt). In those tests, there was no indication that the FAD 
introduces more slack than the current body blocks. Based on 
observations during testing, the cylinders did not undergo additional 
travel and bottoming out of the hydraulic cylinders did not occur. The 
agency believes that the increased range of motion of the current body 
blocks is greater than the FAD and would more likely result in the 
hydraulic cylinders reaching the end of their stroke than with the FAD.
3. Repeatability
    NHTSA assessed the repeatability of the FAD in two different ways. 
First, Karco assessed the consistency of the FAD seating procedure. 
Different test technicians positioned the FAD1 multiple times in nine 
different vehicles (ranging from two-seat sports cars to light duty 
trucks).\64\ 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 (an articulated 
measuring arm with six degrees of freedom) was used to record the 
precise location of seven points on the FAD. Second, NHTSA evaluated 
the repeatability of the forces applied to the anchors using the 
FAD1.\65\ We conducted four anchorage strength tests, using a rigid 
test seat in a test rig, with load cells located at the seat belt 
anchorages and a few other locations (e.g., to measure the tensile load 
for the shoulder belt webbing). In each test, the FAD1 was positioned, 
belted, and pulled per the proposed test procedure. (NHTSA used the 
FAD1 for these repeatability evaluations; it has no reason to believe 
that similar results would not be achieved with the FAD2.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ ``Final Report: Development of a Combination Upper Torso 
and Pelvic Body Block for FMVSS 210 Test, Revision A,'' May 22, 
2003, KARCO Engineering, LLC, pgs. 10, 13, 29 (NHTSA-2012-0036-
0002).
    \65\ ``Repeatability Analysis of the Forces Applied to Safety 
Belt Anchors Using the Force Application Device'' (DOT HS 811 139) 
(NHTSA-2012-0036-0002, pp. 977-995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    The Alliance commented that the repeatability analysis using a 
rigid test seat looks reasonably acceptable.\66\ JCI commented that the 
FAD improves repeatability and reduces the potential for interference 
between the lap and torso blocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ NHTSA understands this comment to refer to NHTSA's 
repeatability analysis supra, n. 66. The KARCO report also contains 
a repeatability analysis of the forces applied to the anchorages 
(NHTSA-2012-0036-0002, pp. 12-33). See supra note 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    NHTSA concludes that use of the FADs leads to sufficiently 
repeatable results. Below we briefly summarize the results of NHTSA's 
testing. More information, including details on the methodology and 
results, is available in the cited reports in the rulemaking docket.
    With respect to the consistency of the seating procedure, of the 
twenty-seven positionings of the FAD (three technicians x 9 vehicles), 
the average variance for positioning the FAD was less than \1/4\ inch. 
We believe that this 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.\67\ 
Accordingly, variability of less than \1/4\ inch in seating the FAD is 
well within the same range of tolerance as specified in FMVSS No. 208 
for positioning the H-point. This result is even more compelling 
considering that the technicians performing the FAD test were 
unaccustomed to the seating procedure, and that the results were based 
on a comparison of three points of the FAD surface, not just one point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ H-point means the mechanically hinged hip point of a 
manikin which simulates the actual pivot center of the human torso 
and thigh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also concludes that the forces applied to the seat belt 
anchorages using the FAD are repeatable (over repeated trials on the 
same seat and vehicle body design). To evaluate the repeatability of 
the forces applied to the anchorages, NHTSA used three different 
methodologies: the coefficient of variation, a general linear model, 
and a mixed model. Each of these analyses indicated that the test 
device applied loads to the anchorages in a repeatable manner. For 
example, the coefficient of variation analysis showed that the test 
procedure was repeatable, with all data channels except two rated 
``excellent.'' Of the remaining two, one data channel was rated 
``good'', and another was rated ``acceptable.'' The ``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 890 N (200 lb), 
is relatively small compared to the 13,345 N (3,000 lb) belt load, so 
the relatively larger measurement error has a minor effect on the 
overall test results. The general linear model and the mixed model 
similarly indicated that the forces measured from the 16 channels tend 
to be consistent and repeatable over time, and there are no 
statistically significant differences across tests.
4. Equivalence With the Body Blocks
    In the NPRM, NHTSA stated that it believed use of the FADs would 
not affect the stringency of the strength test and would not affect the 
likelihood of a vehicle meeting or not meeting the standard's strength 
requirements. NHTSA reported the results of its indicant testing 
showing vehicles that met the anchorage strength requirements using the 
body blocks also met those strength requirements using the FAD.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See NPRM at pgs. 19157-58 and section IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    Commenters expressed concerns regarding whether the proposed FAD 
would perform equivalently to the existing body blocks. Comments from 
manufacturers and suppliers of heavy-duty vehicles focused on whether 
the FAD would perform equivalently in heavy-duty applications.
    Several medium- to heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers, associations, 
and their suppliers commented in response to the NPRM on the lack of 
testing in these vehicles. They pointed out differences between heavy 
and light-duty vehicles and questioned whether heavy-duty vehicles 
would remain compliant if tested with the FAD.
    DTNA, Navistar, and EMA commented on the unique characteristics of 
heavy-duty vehicles and seating systems and noted that NHTSA's testing 
did not include heavy-duty vehicles. For example, EMA stated there was 
no data indicating that existing seat belt assembly anchorages in heavy 
trucks would remain compliant if the FAD is used, and pointed out that 
heavy-duty vehicles have different seating and seat belt assembly 
systems than light-duty vehicles, citing the use of larger cabs, 
upright seating configurations, unique seat belt systems and 
anchorages, and air suspension seats (which utilize tethers to connect 
the seat belt assembly to the anchorages). EMA further commented (on 
the 2018 notice of availability) that the additional technical reports 
NHTSA docketed did not alleviate its concerns because they

[[Page 76252]]

did not contain any data with respect to the feasibility of the FAD on 
the medium- and heavy-duty trucks built by its member companies, and 
suggested that they did not address the unique aspects of the broad 
range of heavy-duty vehicles such as regional or line-haul tractors, 
refuse trucks, construction trucks, parcel delivery step vans, or many 
other applications that would be affected. EMA stated that if NHTSA 
proceeds with amending FMVSS No. 210 based only on the existing 
rulemaking record, it must exempt vehicles with a GVWR greater than 
10,000 pounds from the new requirements. Navistar similarly stated that 
NHTSA's testing did not apply to its highly customized vehicles (e.g., 
a wide variety of seating types and locations).
    EMA, Navistar, and Hino Motors, Ltd. (Hino) commented that 
replacing the current body blocks with the FAD would impact the levels 
and/or directions of the forces that are applied to heavy truck seat 
belt assembly anchorages during compliance testing. For example, DTNA 
stated that it was unclear whether the FAD would introduce unique seat 
loads and seat belt loads not observed in testing with the body blocks 
in heavy-duty applications.
    Commenters also questioned the equivalence of the FAD that were not 
limited to a specific vehicle type. The Association of Global 
Automakers (Global) commented that the results of the nine indicant 
tests reported in the NPRM do not provide a sufficient basis for using 
the current and proposed test devices interchangeably. JCI commented 
that more robust comparison testing should be conducted because the 
testing conducted on bench seats using the FAD and the current body 
blocks simultaneously on the outboard seats may not accurately 
represent the performance of the seat belt assembly anchorages when the 
adjacent designated seating positions are tested simultaneously with 
the same test device. Global noted that the NPRM identifies several 
aspects (e.g., seat belt angle, spool-out, and placement) in which 
testing with the FAD differs from testing with the body blocks and 
stated that it is possible that such differences could affect test 
results. JCI commented that the testing NHTSA conducted does not cover 
the full range of seating structures and test conditions in use, and 
the FAD may interact with the seating configurations in a way that 
impacts seating and/or seat belt assemblies. JCI also stated that the 
FAD allows for more movement in the upper torso than the current body 
blocks resulting in a different vector of force on the seat structure 
and potentially also on the anchorages. The Alliance commented that 
there can be significant differences in the anchorage loads between the 
FAD and the current body blocks and that vehicle seats showed 
significant variability in the anchorage loads for some tests. The 
Alliance pointed to the agency's comparison tests of the 1996 Ford 
Taurus outboard lap anchorage in which the loads obtained using the FAD 
averaged 31% lower than the average of the loads obtained using the 
existing body blocks. Likewise, the comparison tests on the 2003 Honda 
Pilot, indicated a similar variability of 37%. The Alliance stated that 
even though the loads recorded in these cases were lower for the FAD, 
the level of variation \69\ was troubling and needs to be examined 
further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ The agency understands this variation to refer not to 
variability among the measured loads from the FAD (discussed below 
in section V.A.3, Repeatability), but instead to refer to a 
comparison of the anchorage loads observed with the FAD and the 
anchorage loads observed with the body blocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    The agency recognizes that at the time the NPRM was published, it 
had not conducted any indicant tests with the FAD on heavy vehicles. 
However, in response to comments on the NPRM, NHTSA subsequently 
performed three indicant tests with the FAD on the driver's seats in 
three different heavy-duty buses. The anchorages of all three seats met 
the FMVSS No. 210 anchorage strength requirements.
    We believe that we have conducted sufficient testing of the FAD in 
heavy-duty vehicles to conclude, with a reasonable degree of 
confidence, that the FAD is equivalently stringent to the existing body 
blocks in these vehicles. Three FAD tests were performed on seats in 
buses with a GVWR >10,000 lb (two school bus driver's seats, a 
pedestal-type seat and air suspension seat, and a motorcoach driver's 
air suspension seat). The school bus seats were both equipped with Type 
2 seat belts and the motorcoach seat was equipped with a Type 1 seat 
belt. The anchorages of all three seat belts met the FMVSS No. 210 
performance requirements when tested with the FAD. Some of the tested 
seat types are similar to those found in heavy-duty trucks (e.g., air 
suspension, pedestal type seats), and the use of the FAD test device 
did not affect the compliance of the seat belt assembly anchorages. 
These results are also summarized in section IV.B and in Table 4. The 
evidence from the agency's testing program shows that heavy vehicles 
certified to FMVSS No. 210 strength requirements with the body blocks 
are still compliant when tested with the FAD. We have no data to 
support that the use of the FAD would affect the compliance of a 
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ The number in parentheses indicates the number of DSPs 
tested with that test device.

                     Table 4--Indicant Anchorage Strength Tests To Evaluate FAD Equivalence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Vehicle                     Vehicle type            Test device(s) \70\              Result
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Research Docketed with the NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 VW Passat...................  Light..................  Body Blocks (2).............  Pass.
                                                            FAD 1 (2)...................
                                                            FAD 2 (1)...................
2005 Acura RL....................  Light..................  Body Blocks (2).............  Pass.
                                                            FAD 1 (2)...................
                                                            FAD 2 (1)...................
2005 Toyota Avalon...............  Light..................  Body Blocks (2).............  Pass.
                                                            FAD 1 (2)...................
                                                            FAD 2 (1)...................
2005 Buick Lacrosse..............  Light..................  Body Blocks (2).............  Pass.
                                                            FAD 1 (2)...................
                                                            FAD 2 (1)...................

[[Page 76253]]

 
2005 Chrysler 300................  Light..................  Body Blocks (2).............  Pass.
                                                            FAD 1 (2)...................
                                                            FAD 2 (1)...................
2005 Chevy Express Small Bus.....  Light..................  Body Blocks (6).............  Pass.
                                                            FAD 1 (5)...................
                                                            FAD 2 (4)...................
2005 Chrysler Town and Country     Light..................  Body Blocks (3).............  Pass.
 Minivan.                                                   FAD 1 (3)...................
                                                            FAD 2 (1)...................
2005 Ford F-150 Super Crew Cab     Light..................  Body Blocks (2).............  Pass.
 Pick-up.                                                   FAD 1 (2)...................
                                                            FAD 2 (2)...................
2005 Chevy Aveo..................  Light..................  Body Blocks (2).............  Pass.
                                                            FAD 1 (2)...................
                                                            FAD 2 (1)...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Research Docketed After the NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 MCI 102-EL3 Series            Heavy..................  FAD 1 (1)...................  Pass.
 Motorcoach.
2012 Blue Bird All American D3 RE  Heavy..................  FAD 1 (1)...................  Pass.
 School Bus.
2012 IC CE School Bus............  Heavy..................  FAD 1 (1)...................  No test.
2012 Honda Fit...................  Light..................  Body Blocks (1).............  Pass.
                                                            FAD 1 (1)...................
2012 Mitsubishi I-Miev...........  Light..................  Body Blocks (1).............  Pass.
                                                            FAD 1 (1)...................
2012 Chevrolet Suburban..........  Light..................  Body Blocks (2).............  Pass.
                                                            FAD 1 (2)...................
2013 Ford Fusion.................  Light..................  Body Blocks (3).............  Pass.
2013 Ford Fusion.................  Light..................  FAD 1 (2)...................  Pass.
                                                            FAD 2 (1)...................
2013 Ford C-Max..................  Light..................  Body Blocks (3).............  Pass.
2013 Ford C-Max..................  Light..................  FAD 1 (2)...................  Pass.
                                                            FAD 2 (1)...................
2012 Subaru Impreza..............  Light..................  Body Blocks (3).............  Pass.
2012 Subaru Impreza..............  Light..................  FAD 1 (2)...................  Pass.
                                                            FAD 2 (1)...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to commenters who expressed concerns that the FADs 
would introduce different load vectors or that the test load would be 
distributed differently among the anchors compared to the body blocks 
in heavy and/or light-duty applications, we acknowledge that given the 
geometry and construction of the FAD it will not apply the test forces 
to the seat belt assembly anchorages in exactly the same way as the 
current body blocks. The load data in the KARCO report does show that 
the FAD distributes the test loads somewhat differently than the body 
blocks. On average, the FAD produced lower forces at the outboard 
shoulder and d-ring and higher forces at the outboard lap belt 
anchorage. These differences can be attributed to the differences in 
geometry and range of motion of the two test devices. Because the FAD 
has two pieces connected in a manner that restricts their relative 
articulation and the current body blocks move independently of each 
other, the range of motion of the devices is inherently different. In 
addition, the torso body block is supported in air by the torso portion 
of the seat belt; thus, the force vectors and load distributions on the 
shoulder belt portion will differ from those with the FAD. (For these 
reasons we also disagree with JCI's comment that the FAD allows for 
more movement in the upper torso.) However, while the force vectors or 
load distribution between the two test devices may not be the same, the 
total load on the seat belt assembly anchorages is the same for both 
the FAD and the body blocks. Moreover, as discussed in more detail 
below, the indicant test data shows that the FAD performs equivalently 
to the body block.
    To respond to Global's comment that the 9 indicant tests docketed 
with and discussed in the NPRM are not sufficient to establish the 
equivalency of the FAD, and JCI's comment that this testing did not 
cover a full range of seating structures, NHTSA conducted additional 
testing with the FAD on passenger vehicles (as well as the additional 
heavy-duty testing discussed above) to allow for a more robust 
evaluation of the FAD1 and FAD2 with different seat belt assembly 
configurations. This additional testing included five passenger cars 
and a large SUV. In total ten different vehicle makes were represented 
in these tests and the earlier nine indicant tests. Therefore, we 
believe our testing with the FAD has been reasonably representative of 
the population of seats in light vehicles. To address JCI's comment 
that the original indicant tests were not conducted as an actual 
compliance test would be (because they mixed both the FAD and the body 
blocks), in this additional testing we tested three matched pairs of 
vehicles. One vehicle in each pair was tested with only the body 
blocks, and the other vehicle in the pair was tested with only the 
FAD.\71\ There were no test failures in any of these additional 
indicant tests. All the indicant tests involving the FAD are summarized 
in section IV.B and in Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ The testing was conducted on rear seats and the comparison 
vehicles were the same vehicle model and model year but with 
different battery options (e.g., Ford Fusion Hybrid and Ford Fusion 
Energi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA performed testing in a variety of vehicles--both light- and 
heavy-duty--to evaluate equivalence. We did not record failures in any 
of these tests. These results suggest to us that any

[[Page 76254]]

differences in test performance related to use of the FAD--such as 
differences in load vectors, seat belt angle, spool out, or interaction 
with the seating configuration--do not meaningfully affect the test 
results, and, most importantly, do not affect the ultimate test 
outcome. In addition, in real life, the seat belts and anchorages must 
accommodate occupants of varying sizes, sitting in a variety of sitting 
and seat positions; design margins for existing seating and restraint 
systems should be sufficient to accommodate this variation, which 
should also be sufficient to compensate for any effects due to 
differences in test performance related to the FAD.
    The adequacy of existing design margins is supported by the history 
of NHTSA's anchorage strength compliance testing program. In the 
agency's forty-plus year history of testing for compliance with the 
anchorage strength requirements, test failures have been uncommon. 
According to the agency's records, for testing from 1972 to the present 
there were 327 compliance tests for FMVSS No. 210 and only 23 test 
failures.\72\ The agency concludes that this testing is sufficient to 
establish, to a reasonable degree of confidence, that the FAD performs 
equivalently to the body blocks. Moreover, we are also retaining the 
existing body blocks and providing manufacturers the ability to choose 
the device to which they will certify compliance.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Based on a search of NHTSA's electronic records. This tally 
includes failures relating to any of the FMVSS No. 210 requirements, 
as well as what the agency would typically consider ``non-tests'' 
(i.e., tests that could not be completed due to equipment or testing 
issues), so the number of actual test failures for the anchorage 
strength requirements is likely lower than this.
    \73\ Furthermore, any concern about testing with the FAD 
resulting in different test outcomes than testing with the body 
blocks is obviated by the fact that the final rule provides 
manufacturers the choice of compliance options. In any case, as we 
explain here, after much testing, we have no evidence that the FAD 
results in different test outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Stakeholder Familiarity With the FAD
    At the time of the NPRM, manufacturers and other stakeholders did 
not have access to the FAD for evaluation because the agency had 
possession of the only FADs in existence. The agency docketed the FAD 
design drawings with the NPRM.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See NHTSA-2012-0036-0002, ``Final Report: Development of a 
Combination Upper Torso and Pelvic Body Block for FMVSS 210 Test,'' 
Appendix E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    The Alliance, Navistar, DTNA, EMA, Hino and Honda all noted or 
alluded to the lack of knowledge or experience testing with the FAD. 
DTNA commented that the suppliers and availability of the FADs are 
unknown. FSC asked if there would be ``approved manufacturers'' of the 
FAD. The Alliance suggested reopening the comment period to allow 
manufacturers time to procure and test with the FAD and stated that 
initial quotes from Humanetics indicated a 26-week lead-time before the 
first products can be delivered. The Alliance suggested that the FADs 
be made available for round-robin testing. Both Honda and the Alliance 
suggested conducting a technical workshop to demonstrate the use of the 
FAD and go over any technical questions and concerns associated with 
it.
    In response to the SNPRM, JCI noted that it had conducted 
preliminary testing with the FAD and had not experienced any of the 
technical concerns raised in its NPRM comments. It stated that the FAD 
may develop into a feasible test device which helps to reduce 
variability, set-up time, and testing costs.
Agency Response
    NHTSA understands the commenters' concerns that at the time the 
NPRM was published the FAD was not available. However, the FAD design 
information has been publicly available since the NPRM. After the NPRM 
was published, two commenters asked for the 3D design drawings, and we 
made these available upon request (and placed in the docket a memo 
stating so).\75\ To date, the agency has received only a limited number 
of requests for the 3D drawings. Manufacturers have had ample time to 
fabricate and test with FADs; the NPRM was published in 2012 and the 
2015 SNPRM (published in 2015) explicitly stated that NHTSA was still 
considering replacing the body blocks with the FAD or incorporating the 
FAD as an optional testing tool. Moreover, the concerns with respect to 
a lack of familiarity with the FAD are also addressed by the decision 
to give manufacturers the option to continue to certify to the 
requirements with the body blocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ NHTSA-2012-0036-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any supplier or manufacturer is free to manufacture the FAD, and 
the design information that we have made publicly available is 
sufficient to fabricate the FAD. With respect to the comment regarding 
a compliance workshop, we received no further inquiries about this 
possibility. With respect to the comment about round-robin testing, 
NHTSA will make its FADs available to manufacturers or test 
laboratories upon request.
6. Testing Costs
i. Costs of Testing With the FAD
    In the NPRM we estimated the cost of each FAD (FAD1 or FAD2) to be 
approximately $8,000. The agency assumed that a vehicle manufacturer or 
test facility would purchase a set of two FAD1s and three FAD2s, and 
that the principal cost associated with the NPRM is the one-time 
purchase cost of $40,000.
    The NPRM stated that we believe there would be cost savings 
associated with using the FADs because they require less effort, time, 
and personnel to install in the test vehicle, and that over time these 
efficiencies would offset the one-time purchase cost of the FADs. In 
the NPRM, we estimated that the use of the FADs would result in a labor 
cost savings of $18.75 per vehicle test and on average a time savings 
of 5 minutes per seat installation.
Comments
    FSC, which has a small test lab, stated that it would acquire five 
or more FADs, which would cost at least $40,000. Navistar commented 
that it has numerous test facilities and would require a dozen FADs (an 
initial investment of $96,000).
    The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) commented that 
most motorhome manufacturers are small-volume manufacturers, and that 
motorhome manufacturers faced with expanded testing using new FAD 
equipment would confront massively (and potentially crippling) testing 
costs, with minimal ability to recapture test costs by spreading them 
across the units sold. RVIA argued that these costs would contrast 
markedly with large volume automobile manufacturers, which can test one 
unit of a model that represents tens or hundreds of thousands of 
similar units produced. Both EMA and DTNA commented that it is unknown 
whether the test set-up with the FAD results in less effort and time in 
a heavy-duty truck since no testing was done on these vehicles.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Global, the Alliance, and DTNA also commented that there 
would be additional certification costs, not considered in the NPRM, 
resulting from disharmonization. This subject is discussed in 
section V.C.10, Regulatory Alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    Although vehicle manufacturers or test laboratories might purchase 
larger quantities of FADs than assumed in the NPRM to meet their 
testing needs, additional FADs are not necessary for

[[Page 76255]]

testing based on the FMVSS No. 210 performance requirements. Test labs 
typically test one vehicle at a time, and vehicles typically do not 
have more than five adjacent seating positions (that would be tested 
simultaneously). In addition, we believe that the useful life of the 
FADs can be measured in decades because of the materials with which it 
is constructed, and any cost can be amortized over this long life. For 
vehicle designs with long production lives, such as heavy vehicles, the 
testing cost would be spread over many years. We recognize that 
smaller-volume manufacturers would find it more difficult to recover 
these costs. However, it is likely that small-volume manufacturers 
would contract out testing services, thus the cost of the of purchasing 
the FADs would not be incurred by them directly. Another potential 
solution to defray cost might be for the RVIA to purchase FADs for the 
use of their members.
    The test cost savings expected from the FAD's ease of use should 
apply equally as well to heavy-duty vehicles as well as light vehicles. 
The handling and positioning of the body blocks (mainly the torso body 
block) require more time and effort than seating the FAD regardless of 
vehicle type. The Karco final report included a section on the FAD's 
ease of use that discussed the installation time savings (6.75 minutes 
per seating position) and noted that, unlike the body blocks, it does 
not require multiple installation attempts. The research test reports 
docketed with the NPRM noted that the FADs were much easier to position 
than the current body blocks.
ii. Potential Re-Certification Costs
    The NPRM stated that the use of the FAD would not affect the 
stringency of the seat belt assembly anchorage strength test.
Comments
    Several vehicle manufacturers and vehicle manufacturer associations 
expressed concerns regarding the potential need for additional testing 
to ensure that the seat belt assembly anchorages certified with the 
current body blocks remain compliant when the FAD is used for testing.
    The Alliance, EMA, Hino, Navistar, DTNA, and RVIA commented that 
vehicle manufacturers would have to perform expensive additional 
certification testing to ensure that their vehicles continued to be 
compliant when tested with the FAD. For example, the Alliance stated 
that even if a vehicle modification is not necessary, the new test 
hardware and procedures could require additional certification testing, 
which would require significant additional cost because many vehicles 
have numerous body styles and seating arrangements, and testing costs 
include bucks, seats, seat belts, body preparation time, test set up 
and tear down and disposal of scrap materials. Similarly, EMA commented 
on the need for additional validation testing with the FAD and stated 
that to ensure that existing heavy-duty truck models remain compliant 
to FMVSS No. 210 when tested using FADs, manufacturers would have to 
either prove that testing with the new FAD is equivalent to testing 
with the current body blocks, or re-test to ensure compliance of 
vehicles produced after the effective date of the rule. EMA commented 
that, at a minimum, one test would be required to establish equivalency 
of the FAD and the body blocks, and that test (which destroys a cab 
shell) is estimated to cost between $20,000 and $30,000. More likely, a 
manufacturer would have to conduct many tests to ensure equivalency for 
all seat, seat belt, and seat belt anchorage configurations in all its 
models. For example, Navistar estimated that such an equivalency 
evaluation could cost $670,000, and that the only alternative to 
establishing equivalency of FADs would be to re-test every product that 
a manufacturer plans to continue selling after the new rule is 
effective, which would be prohibitively expensive. Additionally, if 
testing disclosed a discrepancy between the FAD and the body blocks, 
the manufacturer would incur the costs of implementing a solution and 
would also need to address its potential liabilities from sold 
vehicles.
    RVIA commented that if NHTSA finalized the FAD, the final rule 
should permit manufacturers to continue certifying to the anchorage 
strength requirements with the current body blocks until such time 
(regardless of how long) as new testing is made necessary by applicable 
changes in seating or vehicle structure, to allow motorhome 
manufacturers to gradually implement the new requirements and at least 
partially mitigate implementation costs.
Agency Response
    As we explained above, the agency's indicant tests on passenger 
vehicle and bus seats do not indicate that using the FAD affected the 
compliance of the tested seat belt assembly anchorages; there were no 
test failures (see section V.A.4). However, considering the comments to 
the NPRM suggesting that manufacturers might conclude that to certify 
to the anchorage strength requirements using the FAD they would have to 
conduct additional certification testing, NHTSA has decided to retain 
and modify the test procedure using the longstanding body blocks (which 
is discussed in detail in section V.B). Accordingly, if a manufacturer 
has a concern with the FAD--for example, if it believes the FAD would 
not be practicable for a particular vehicle, or that it would have to 
conduct costly testing or design to re-certify a vehicle platform--it 
may certify to the body block compliance option instead.
7. Incorporation by Reference
    Under regulations issued by the Office of the Federal Register (1 
CFR 51.5(b)), an agency, as part of a final rule that includes material 
incorporated by reference, must summarize in the preamble of the final 
rule the material it incorporates by reference and discuss the ways the 
material is reasonably available to interested parties or how the 
agency worked to make materials available to interested parties.
    In this final rule, NHTSA incorporates by reference material 
entitled ``Drawing Package for the Force Application Device 1 (FAD1), 
April 9, 2024'' and ``Drawing Package for the Force Application Device 
2, April 9, 2024,'' consisting of engineering drawings and 
specifications for the force application device that NHTSA will use to 
assess the compliance of seat belt assembly anchorages with FMVSS No. 
210 if the manufacturer selects that compliance option. 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.
    NHTSA has placed a copy of the material in the docket for this 
final rule. Interested persons can download a copy of the material or 
view the material online by accessing www.Regulations.gov, telephone 1-
877-378-5457, or by contacting NHTSA's Chief Counsel's Office at the 
phone number and address set forth in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this document. The material is also available for 
inspection at the Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, Telephone: (202) 
366-9826.

B. Body Blocks

    The SNPRM announced that the agency was considering maintaining the 
current body blocks and refining the test procedure to specify the 
positioning of the body blocks more clearly so that manufacturers are 
informed of the range of positions that may be tested to determine 
compliance. After the

[[Page 76256]]

SNPRM was published, the agency docketed the additional research it had 
conducted to develop and validate the zones (as well as additional 
testing with the FAD). The agency received comments on the proposed 
zone concept in response to both the SNPRM and the subsequently 
docketed research. In this section we address those comments and 
explain NHTSA's decision to retain the current body blocks while 
refining the test procedure to respond to the Chrysler decision and 
clarify the test procedure.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Unless otherwise noted, the comments summarized below were 
in response to the 2015 SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Retention of Body Blocks and Appropriateness of Specifying Zones for 
Body Block Placement
    The SNPRM announced that the agency was considering maintaining the 
current body blocks and proposed a preliminary concept that consisted 
of specifying zones within which the body blocks would be placed for 
testing purposes, as it has done in FMVSS No. 222, ``School bus 
passenger seating and crash protection.'' \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ The procedure in FMVSS No. 222 establishes a zone in which 
the body block must be located when testing school bus passenger 
seating and restraining barriers. Specifically, after the preload 
application is complete, the origin of the torso body block radius, 
at any point across the torso body block thickness, must lie within 
a zone defined by specified boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    The Alliance, FSC, Global, Honda, IMMI, and JCI all supported the 
continued use of the body blocks, and JCI, the Alliance, and IMMI 
specifically supported refining the test procedure to make it more 
objective and repeatable. For example, JCI commented that the current 
test procedure is unclear and potentially inconsistent. Several 
commenters suggested alternative approaches to specify the position of 
the body blocks instead of the zone approach. These suggestions are 
discussed in section V.B.7, Alternative Solutions.
    However, some commenters appeared to question the appropriateness 
of specifying zones for the FMVSS No. 210 anchorage strength test. 
Global commented that the test setup is overly complex, making it 
difficult to obtain repeatable test results and increasing the time 
needed for test setup. FSC shared Global's stated concern about the 
complexity of the procedure and space limitations when conducting in-
vehicle testing. Vans and minivans with a GVWR under 10,000 lb, have 
space constraints, especially when there are no rear windows and in 
rear-rows with four DSPs. Alliance, Global, and IMMI stated they were 
concerned that zones that would be valid for a wide range of vehicles 
would be too large, resulting in excessive variability (this is 
discussed further in section V.B.4). The Alliance recommended 
harmonizing with ECE R14 requirements for positioning the pelvic and 
torso block during the initial test set-up, including against the seat 
back. Global and FSC similarly suggested that the body blocks be placed 
against the seat back. Honda did not agree with the zone concept 
because it would result in disharmonization. (Harmonization is further 
discussed in section V.C.10.)
Agency Response
    The final rule will retain the body blocks along with a refined 
test procedure that more clearly specifies the positioning of the 
blocks and will adopt the FAD as an optional test device. If 
manufacturers are not comfortable with the FAD, they may continue to 
use the body blocks. As explained in more detail below, NHTSA is, 
consistent with the decision in Chrysler, amending the body block test 
procedure to clearly specify the placement of the body blocks at 
preload.
    NHTSA acknowledges that the finalized test procedure does add 
complexity to the current test procedure, which places no restrictions 
on the starting location of the body blocks. However, this change is 
both necessary and practicable. It is necessary because in Chrysler the 
D.C. Circuit determined that the existing test procedure did not 
provide manufacturers with adequate notice of where NHTSA would 
position the body blocks. However, NTHSA's testing showed that testing 
using the finalized zones is practicable. For example, there are 
methods for assisting the positioning of the body blocks in the 
allowable zones (e.g., positioning aids, using lasers and a Faro Arm to 
ensure proper positioning, etc.) \79\ that can be readily implemented 
by test laboratories. For vehicles with extreme space or accessibility 
constraints, sections of the vehicle can be removed to improve access 
and visibility. The zones also improve test repeatability by limiting 
the positioning of the body blocks. Comments regarding the size of the 
zones are discussed in detail in section V.B.4 and the alternatives 
suggested by commenters are discussed in section V.B.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ ``Development of Positioning Zones for FMVSS No. 210 Body 
Blocks,'' pgs. 39-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Reference Point for Determining Zone Locations
    The zone used in FMVSS No. 222 is defined with reference to the 
school bus torso belt adjusted height (TBAH) \80\ and the SgRP. The 
SNPRM announced the possibility of using similar zones for the FMVSS 
No. 210 testing, but did not discuss how the proposed zone boundaries 
would be determined. That determination was discussed in the research 
report NHTSA docketed in 2018.\81\ Specifically, that report set out 
the zones specified in this final rule and explained how they were 
developed. The zones are specified in relation to the SgRP, which is a 
design point determined by the vehicle manufacturer that represents a 
specific landmark near the hip of a 50th percentile adult male seated 
in the driver's seat. The SgRP is similar to, but different from, the 
H-point, which is the hip point as determined by placing a two-
dimensional manikin in the seat.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ The school bus torso belt adjusted height is defined in S3 
of Standard No. 210 as the vertical height above the seating 
reference point (SgRP) of the horizontal plane containing a segment 
of the torso belt centerline located 25 mm to 75 mm forward of the 
torso belt height adjuster device, when the torso belt retractor is 
locked and the torso belt is pulled away from the seat back by 
applying a 20 N horizontal force in the forward direction through 
the webbing at a location 100 mm or more forward of the adjustment 
device as shown in Figure 5 (of FMVSS No. 210).
    \81\ ``Development of Positioning Zones for FMVSS No. 210 Body 
Blocks.''
    \82\ SAE J826 JUL95 defines and specifies a procedure, including 
a manikin, for determining the location of the H-point. NHTSA's 
regulations define the H-point as the pivot center of the torso and 
thigh on the three-dimensional device used in defining and measuring 
vehicle seating accommodation, as defined in Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1100: Motor Vehicle 
Dimensions, revised in February 2001. 49 CFR 571.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    Honda recommended that the zones be based on the SgRP instead of 
the TBAH. Honda stated that while the TBAH of school bus seats is not 
variable (because the seat belts are contained in the seats), the TBAH 
in other types of passenger vehicles is variable, leading to instances 
in which the zone is higher than the passenger's torso.
    IMMI shared Honda's stated concern about the variability of the 
TBAH in vehicles other than school buses, and stated that this 
variability would lead to large zones or setup problems. IMMI 
recommended that NHTSA instead use the H-point. However, IMMI 
identified what it viewed as potential issues with using the H-point. 
It stated that if not provided by a seat or vehicle manufacturer for 
the seat to be tested prior to the actual test, the testing

[[Page 76257]]

agency will become responsible for determining the location of the H-
point. It also stated that the SAE J826 machine does not always 
position well in the seat due to the bolsters and cushion contours, 
leading to variations in H-point determinations. To accommodate this 
variation, according to IMMI, there may be a need for an increase to 
the alignment zone, which could lead to variation in FMVSS No. 210 
performance test results. The Alliance recommended using either the 
SgRP or H-point instead of the TBAH, because using the TBAH would 
introduce too much variability in body block positioning, which could 
lead to infeasible zones.
    FSC developed a positioning procedure that defined the positioning 
of the body blocks relative to one another, and submitted data relating 
to this procedure. However, FSC reported that this procedure did not 
work well since the reference plane was attached to the pelvic body 
block and therefore moved when a preload was applied. FSC stated that 
it was providing the data for informational purposes and was not 
suggesting it be adopted.
Agency Response
    NHTSA agrees with the commenters' concerns about using the TBAH. 
The final zones do not use the TBAH and instead are specified with 
reference to the SgRP. We decided to use the SgRP and not the H-point 
because the seat positioning provided for a more adequate torso 
location.
    NHTSA appreciates FSC's comment and agrees that its concept would 
be difficult to implement, given that the body blocks are independent 
of each other, and their positioning depends on a variety of other 
factors, such as the design and weight of the body blocks (see section 
V.B.3). We believe the body block zone concept adequately addresses 
these factors because they were considered during the development of 
the zones.
3. Applicability of Zones to a Range of Vehicle and Seat Designs and 
Factors Affecting Position of Body Blocks at Preload
    In the SNPRM, NHTSA stated that it had initiated research to aid in 
the development of the zones bounding the initial placement for the 
current body blocks. NHTSA explained that the research would evaluate 
the zone concept across different vehicle types (including heavy 
vehicles) and seat configurations and develop zone boundaries that 
would be feasible and practicable for all or most vehicles.
Comments
    NHTSA received a variety of comments to the SNPRM regarding factors 
that affect the preload positioning of the body blocks.
    IMMI, JCI, EMA, the Alliance, and Global commented that body block 
position would depend on seat and seat belt designs. IMMI further 
commented that the body blocks would not necessarily fit well in all 
seats due to variations in seat cushion contours, seat back size and 
bolster shape. EMA similarly commented that changes to the FMVSS No. 
210 certification test procedures designed to work for passenger cars 
may not work for heavy trucks. It noted that while FMVSS No. 222 
applies only to rigid school bus bench seats (which are different than 
seats used in heavy trucks (e.g., air suspension seats)), FMVSS No. 210 
specifies seat belt anchorage requirements for a broad range of motor 
vehicles, including medium and heavy-duty trucks. It stated that 
without testing of a broad range of heavy-duty trucks, NHTSA cannot 
know for certain whether it is feasible to establish appropriate body 
blocks zones for heavy-duty trucks. EMA further stated (in its comments 
on the 2018 notice of availability) that the additional technical 
reports NHTSA docketed did not alleviate its concerns because they do 
not contain any data with respect to the feasibility of the body blocks 
on the medium- and heavy-duty trucks built by its member companies, and 
suggested that the reports do not properly address the unique aspects 
of the broad range of medium and heavy-duty vehicles (e.g., tractors, 
refuse trucks, parcel delivery vans, etc.). Accordingly, EMA argued 
that NHTSA should exempt vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 
pounds from the new requirements. IMMI commented that the body block 
position at the start of the test (i.e., when the test load is applied) 
is affected by how tight the seat belt is pre-tensioned during setup, 
which affects the movement of the blocks during the preload or initial 
loading phase of the pull tests.
    IMMI also stated that achieving consistent positioning of the torso 
block is made challenging by the mass of the torso body block and the 
mass of the load chain, so that unless supported prior to application 
of sufficient pull load, the block will drop from initial set-up 
position. IMMI stated that additional setup is required to hold the 
torso blocks in place prior to actual testing; IMMI uses a temporary 
hoist chain to support the torso block until sufficient preload is 
achieved to securely position the block for full test loads. IMMI 
commented that this method is not always acceptable when dealing with 
enclosed seating or multiple position tests and additional alternative 
means for vertical support must be devised. Ultimately, tests results 
may possibly be impacted depending on support type. IMMI accordingly 
suggested revising the design of the torso block to simplify and reduce 
mass.
    FSC conducted an analysis on the movement of the body blocks up to 
and during preload with different seat belt and seat types and provided 
its findings.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ It measured the displacement with (1) no connections to the 
hydraulic cylinders (rest), (2) with chains connected to hydraulic 
cylinders, and finally (3) at the FMVSS No. 210 recommended 
preload[s] of 136 kg and 227 kg (300 lb and 500 lb) for Type I & 
Type II seats respectively. See Attachment 2 of FSC's comment for 
details (NHTSA-2012-0036-0027).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    After reviewing the comments on the SNPRM, NHTSA carried out 
research to develop zones for the body blocks that would be appropriate 
for the anchorage strength test. To ensure that the zones would apply 
to a wide variety of types of vehicles and seats, the agency's research 
considered the factors identified by the SNPRM commenters, as well as 
other factors that could affect body block position at preload. These 
factors included vehicle-specific parameters (such as the seat design 
and the overall seat belt system geometry) and test-specific parameters 
(such as the force application angle). The zones in the final rule are 
based on data from body blocks positioned in a variety of vehicles, 
seats, and seat-belt configurations. The zones are based on data from a 
range of different passenger vehicles, and were mathematically expanded 
to accommodate an even wider range of vehicles. The zones were 
validated on three heavy vehicles--specifically, two school bus seats 
(an IMMI school bus seat and a C.E. White school bus seat) and one 
motorcoach (an Amaya motorcoach) seat. Although the agency did not test 
the zones in every single possible type of medium- and heavy-duty 
vehicle, we believe NHTSA's testing shows that the zones are valid for 
a wide range of vehicles, including medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. 
Given the extensive use of the body blocks over the years, we believe 
IMMI's concerns about the body blocks not being an adequate test device 
for testing a wide variety of seat designs has not been borne out in 
practice. Because the agency's research included a variety

[[Page 76258]]

of seat and seat belt designs, the zones in the final rule are large 
enough to account for this variety.
    With respect to IMMI's comment regarding seat belt tension and 
routing, NHTSA's fleet study did find that the amount of seat belt 
webbing pulled out from the retractor had an effect on body block 
placement in the fore/aft direction (x-plane). The study attempted to 
address the pre-tension of the seat belt by marking the belt at the D-
ring at the desired length and locking it at this position for the 
remaining positioning attempts on that seat. Testing laboratories can 
put these actions into practice to facilitate positioning of the body 
blocks in a vehicle; testing laboratories can adjust the seat belt to 
the length necessary so that the body block is within the zone at 
preload. Similarly, if testing is performed with replacement webbing or 
cable, the length of the replacement material can be chosen to 
determine a fore/aft position in the required zone. In addition, the 
routing of the belt on the torso block can be used for small adjustment 
to increase the distance between the torso and pelvic block to avoid 
interference. This technique was not required in NHTSA's fleet study 
because contact (interference) between the blocks was not observed 
before or during application of the preload.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Removal of slack is not the same concept with the FAD as it 
is for the body blocks. A FAD sits on the seat and so slack can be 
easily removed whereas the body blocks potentially must be adjusted 
to be positioned in the zones and in some cases are held in place by 
the belt, particularly for the torso block. If there was slack in 
the belt the body block would not be held in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has decided not to specify the weight or revise (simplify) 
the torso or pelvic body block designs. NHTSA's fleet study examined 
the effect of the mass of the torso body block and found that the 
positioning of the torso block was not sensitive to torso block mass. 
The weight of IMMI's torso body block seems to be greater than the 
blocks tested by NHTSA, so IMMI's torso block design and construction 
may be unnecessarily heavy. Both the torso and pelvic body blocks have 
been in use for decades and similar designs are used internationally. 
The agency has conducted numerous FMVSS No. 210 compliance tests 
through multiple test laboratories. Laboratory technicians use various 
techniques to facilitate the set-up of the torso body block, such as 
positioning devices. The agency's study identified several such 
techniques,\85\ and the fleet study that was used to develop the zones 
used one of these techniques--a positioning aid placed on top of the 
pelvic body block--as well as having a laboratory technician position 
it by hand. Based on our testing, we believe that the final zones will 
accommodate different placement techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ ``Development of Positioning Zones for FMVSS No. 210 Body 
Blocks,'' pgs. 13-16 (NHTSA-2012-0036-0041).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One parameter NHTSA did not evaluate in the fleet study is the 
effect of the hardware used to connect the body blocks to the force 
actuators (e.g., chains). While FSC's analysis does suggest that the 
seat type and connection to the force actuators have some effect on the 
position of the body blocks at preload, NHTSA's testing showed that the 
connection method does not have a meaningful effect on the position of 
the body blocks and the finalized zones will accommodate the effects of 
this test parameter.
4. Size of Zones, Variability of Test Results, and Effect on Compliance
    The SNPRM explained that NHTSA was considering specifying zones 
like those specified in FMVSS No. 222, but did not otherwise discuss 
the size of the zones, or the variability of test results and whether 
currently produced vehicles certified before the establishment of the 
zones would continue to comply with the standard. The reports docketed 
with the notice of availability in 2018 did provide this information 
(see section IV.B).
Comments
    The Alliance, Global, and IMMI stated they were concerned that 
zones that would be valid for a wide range of vehicles would be too 
large, resulting in excessive variability. The Alliance stated that the 
FMVSS No. 222 zone would be too large, resulting in significant 
variability in belt force vectors and system performance with the torso 
blocks placed at the extreme ends of the zone. The Alliance also stated 
that the zones would permit interactions between the torso and pelvic 
blocks that could result in load transfer between the blocks, which 
could result in non-representative loading onto the seat belt assembly 
anchorages, and such variability would require manufacturers to run 
additional compliance testing, and could also drive additional cost and 
weight into vehicles. Global and IMMI similarly argued that factors 
such as the give of the seat belt system, deflection of the seat 
cushion, variation in seat cushion contour, seat back size, torso belt 
anchor location, and bolster shape would affect the position of the 
body blocks and make consistent positioning a challenge; these factors 
may necessitate a large zone, which could lead to variation in test 
results. Global also commented that the FMVSS No. 222 test procedure is 
not suitable for use in FMVSS No. 210 because the test setup is overly 
complex, and it is difficult to ensure consistent test repeatability 
when positioning the body blocks.
    EMA stated that even if it were possible to establish appropriate 
body block zones that would accommodate all seat and seat belt assembly 
configurations in all heavy-duty vehicles, it would be prohibitively 
expensive to re-certify all existing vehicles to comply with the new 
requirements.
Agency Response
    As an initial matter, we note that even if there is variability in 
test results in the sense that a vehicle model may pass the anchorage 
strength test with the body blocks at one location in the zone, but 
fail the test when the body block is placed at another location in the 
zone, this variability is attributable to the vehicle's performance, 
not the test. The final zones give manufacturers clear notice of where 
NHTSA may position the body blocks for testing. Manufacturers are 
responsible for ensuring compliance at all points in the zones.
    In any case, while we believe the final rule's zones are large 
enough to account for a variety of vehicles and seat types, they are 
still relatively modest in size, particularly from the side-profile. 
(See section IV.B for the zone dimensions.) The zone for the torso body 
block target point measures 530 mm in length by 240 mm in width by 245 
mm in height (20.9 in. by 9.4 in. by 9.6 in.) and the zone for the 
pelvic body block target point measures 340 mm in length by 205 mm in 
width by 145 mm in height (13.4 in. by 8.1 in. by 5.7 in.). We also 
have seen no data or evidence to suggest that there will be large 
variability in force vectors or test results. To address the Alliance's 
concern about testing at the zone extremes, we ran an indicant test on 
a minivan with the body blocks at the longitudinal extremes of the 
zones recorded in the field study. There was no effect on the seat belt 
anchors meeting the load requirements of FMVSS No. 210. In addition, as 
noted earlier, NHTSA performed several indicant tests with preliminary 
versions of the zones on a variety of light vehicles, and did not 
record any test failures. Moreover, in the agency's forty-plus year 
history of testing for compliance with the anchorage strength 
requirements, test failures have been uncommon. According to the 
agency's records, for testing from 1972 to the present, there were 327 
compliance tests

[[Page 76259]]

for FMVSS No. 210 and only 23 test failures.\86\ (For a response to the 
Alliance's comment regarding interactions between the body blocks see 
section V.B.7.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ This tally includes failures related to any of the FMVSS 
No. 210 requirements as well as what the agency would typically 
consider ``non-tests'' (i.e., tests that could not be completed due 
to equipment or testing issues), so the number of actual test 
failures for the anchorage strength requirements is likely lower 
than this. The agency was unable to locate all the past test reports 
to determine the number of failures more accurately. The agency 
believes, however, that the overall magnitude of the number of test 
failures reflected in the available records accurately reflects the 
magnitude of actual test failures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reasons, we also have not seen any data or evidence to 
suggest that testing to the final zones will result in different test 
outcomes compared to the existing test procedure. The current test 
procedure has no constraints on the positioning of the body blocks. The 
refined test procedure in this final rule establishes allowable zones 
for the positioning of the body blocks. It therefore reduces the set of 
permissible test conditions. Because the universe of test conditions is 
smaller, the variability of possible test outcomes is also smaller. 
Thus, we do not foresee issues with compliance.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Moreover, if a vehicle fails the test with the body blocks 
positioned in the final rule zones, whereas it passes the test with 
the blocks positioned outside the zones, failure would be the proper 
outcome. These results would indicate that the vehicle can only pass 
the test with an unusual placement of the blocks that is unlikely to 
be equivalent to a real occupant's seating position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Laboratory Safety Concerns
    FMVSS No. 210, S4.2.4 requires simultaneous testing of certain 
types of designated seating positions (those that are common to the 
same occupant seat and that face in the same direction or laterally 
adjacent designated seating positions that are not common to the same 
occupant seat, but that face in the same direction if their anchorages 
are within a certain distance from each other). Testing of adjacent 
designated seating positions with the body blocks can lead to an 
intricate test set-up with multiple body blocks and chains in a 
relatively confined space, and with a load being applied to the chains. 
With the refined test procedure, verifying the positioning of the body 
blocks in the allowable zones and maintaining the position for each 
designated seating position until all adjacent designated seating 
positions are ready for testing will inherently require some additional 
effort and diligence.
Comments
    Honda and Global stated they were concerned that positioning the 
body blocks while a preload force is being applied could be dangerous 
for the laboratory technicians, especially for the middle seating 
position in a three-seat row.
Agency Response
    Testing inboard seats is not a new requirement. The new 
requirements only require the additional process of ensuring the body 
blocks are in the zones, and we believe the zones are sized in a manner 
that would limit the need for repositioning of the body blocks. As 
discussed in the docketed test report,\88\ the involvement of 
technicians can be minimized by using different test set-up methods. 
For example, positioning aids can be used to minimize the involvement 
of the technicians when applying the preload to the body blocks, and 
the use of lasers and/or a Faro Arm to ensure proper positioning of the 
body blocks in the zones would help minimize the exposure to the body 
blocks at preload. Therefore, we do not believe that the refined test 
procedure would necessarily result in an increased safety risk for 
technicians. The implementation of the zones will mainly require 
additional test set up effort, not installation effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ ``Development of Positioning Zones for FMVSS No. 210 Body 
Blocks'' (NHTSA-2012-0036-0041).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Lack of Regulatory Test Procedure Language and Requested Public 
Workshop
    The notice of availability did not set out specific test procedures 
for positioning the body blocks in the zones, although the docketed 
test report did provide the zone specifications, as well as discussion 
and data related to positioning the body blocks in a variety of 
vehicles using a variety of different positioning methods.
Comments
    The Alliance and EMA, in their comments on the notice of 
availability, recommended that NHTSA issue a pre-final rule draft test 
procedure and that NHTSA should provide them with the opportunity to 
comment on this. EMA also stated that if it is not provided an 
opportunity to comment, NHTSA should exempt Class 3 through 8 
commercial vehicles from the new requirements, and suggested that the 
proposed regulatory language should have specific testing requirements 
applicable to the driver's seats of medium- and heavy-duty trucks.
    The Alliance also recommended that NHTSA schedule a public 
compliance workshop to inform the public about how the procedures would 
be applied as well as provide an opportunity to identify any remaining 
issues. The Alliance also stated that it was still evaluating the 
research and intended to provide detailed comments, and requested that 
the agency not issue a final rule until at least 90 days after 
publication of the notice of availability.
Agency Response
    NHTSA has decided to issue the final rule without providing 
additional opportunity to comment on the exact language contained in 
the finalized test procedures. NHTSA believes that doing so is not 
necessary in this instance. While NHTSA typically provides proposed 
regulatory text, it is not required under the Administrative Procedure 
Act. However, although NHTSA did not provide exact regulatory language 
regarding this issue, the research report NHTSA docketed and upon which 
the Alliance and EMA commented contained the exact zone specifications 
that are in the final rule.\89\ The research report also contained 
extensive information about the test procedures, both the procedures 
contained in the final regulatory text, as well as more informal 
laboratory procedures that may be part of the laboratory test 
procedures manual or laboratory practice. Also, body blocks have been 
used for anchorage strength testing since the inception of FMVSS No. 
210 in 1967. The final rule does not alter the characteristics or 
specifications of the body blocks. It also does not alter the 
longstanding test procedures, other than limiting the locations in 
which NHTSA may place the body blocks at preload. For these same 
reasons, NHTSA has also decided not to hold a public workshop before 
issuing the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ ``Development of Positioning Zones for FMVSS No. 210 Body 
Blocks'' (NHTSA-2012-0036-0041).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Alternative Solutions Suggested by NPRM Commenters
    The SNPRM invited comments on the proposed zone concept as well as 
other possible solutions. The SNPRM requested comments on how the zones 
should be established in the vehicle environment, how to verify that 
the body blocks are within the specified zones under preload, and any 
make/model-specific issues that could impact the implementation of the 
proposed body block zone concept. It requested that commenters' 
recommendations be consistent with the existing standard requirements 
and test procedure (e.g., force requirements, hold time, etc.).

[[Page 76260]]

i. ECE R14 6.3.4 and Similar Procedures
Comments
    The Alliance identified several related modifications based on 
S6.3.4 of Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation No. 14 (R14), 
``Safety belt anchorages'', that it recommended NHTSA adopt to address 
the Alliance's concerns about test variability and load transfer 
between the torso and pelvic body blocks. JCI also encouraged the 
agency to consider an alternative body block positioning procedure that 
would eliminate body block interference during testing, and provide 
specific guidance on how to position the blocks in relation to each 
other and to the seat.
     Place body blocks against the seatback with belt pulled 
tight. The Alliance noted that R14 requires that the pelvic block be 
``pushed back into the seat back while the belt strap is pulled tight 
around it,'' and the torso block must be ``placed in position, [while] 
the belt strap is fitted over the device and pulled tight.'' \90\ FSC 
and Global had similar comments. FSC suggested the body blocks be set 
up on the seats and the occupant restraints cinched down so that the 
body blocks are in contact with the seating surface (seat back and seat 
cushion) prior to test preload. This setup would be similar to FMVSS 
No. 225 S11(a), which calls for a rearward force to be applied to the 
test device to press the device against the seat back and remove any 
slack or tension in the seat belt. Global stated that placing the body 
blocks against the seat back is representative of real-world use 
conditions, and several test laboratories have evaluated testing with 
the positioning of the body blocks near the seat back and identified no 
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ UN Regulation No. 14 Revision 7--7 August 2023, Section 
6.3.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Position torso block rearward of pelvic block. The 
Alliance recommended that NHTSA modify the current test procedure for 
positioning the body blocks such that under application of a preload 
that is 10% of the target load, the lowest point on the torso block 
must be positioned rearward of the forwardmost plane on the horizontal 
surface of the lap belt block.
     Specify that interference be avoided. The Alliance also 
recommended adopting the R14 requirement that the positioning of the 
body blocks ``shall avoid any mutual influences during the pull test 
which adversely affects the load and load distribution.'' \91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ S6.3.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Specify torso body block pivot point. The Alliance also 
noted that the torso pivot point is not specified in the regulation or 
the laboratory test procedure and, as a result, various torso blocks 
exist, unnecessarily introducing test setup variability. It recommended 
that NHTSA revise the standard so that the pivot point is as specified 
in ECE R14, which specifies the exact location of the pivot point on 
the torso body block.
Agency Response
    We agree that the test procedure should specify that there be no 
contact between the pelvic and torso body blocks at the end of preload. 
The SNPRM did not discuss how the refined body block test procedure 
would address potential interaction between the body blocks. Currently 
neither the standard nor the compliance test procedure address body 
block interaction prior to or during testing. Although we would not 
expect contact to result in undesirable load transfer between the two 
blocks, contact between the pelvic and torso body blocks could affect 
how the loads are distributed onto the seat belt if one block became 
hooked on the other. However, the agency is not aware of this having 
been a problem during its own compliance testing nor is it aware of any 
manufacturer concerns about body block interaction during the long 
history of compliance testing for FMVSS No. 210. Nonetheless, the best 
practice would be to avoid any contact. The final regulatory text 
specifies that the body blocks must not be in contact at the end of the 
preload force application (i.e., before the test force is applied). Our 
research has identified different methods to prevent preload contact 
between the body blocks, which includes adjusting the alignment of the 
seat belt on the torso block or using a positioning aid to achieve 
clearance between the body blocks.\92\ After preload (that is, once the 
test loads (i.e., loads greater than 1,335 N) begin to be applied and 
held for the required 10 seconds) the test procedure does not prohibit 
the body blocks from touching. We recognize that it might not be safe 
for laboratory technicians to adjust the position of the body blocks 
when the much greater test load is applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ ``Development of Positioning Zones for FMVSS No. 210 Body 
Blocks,'' pgs. 13-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has decided not to adopt the suggested method of pushing the 
body blocks against the seat and cinching the seat belt tightly, 
because doing so could potentially impact the seat structure and 
anchorage performance.\93\ This method could especially be a problem 
for seats with integrated seat belts because there may be a tendency 
for increased seat deformation if cinching the blocks against an 
integrated seat. We also believe this deviation from R14 is necessary 
to ensure objectivity and ensure that the standard is enforceable in 
the U.S. The U.S. self-certification and compliance testing process in 
the FMVSSs requires a high level of objectivity. In the decision in 
Chrysler, the Court of Appeals found that too much ambiguity exists in 
the current FMVSS No. 210 test procedure. Consequently, the agency is 
working toward a more enforceable standard. The instruction to ``pull'' 
the belt ``tight'' is vague, especially if the belts are switched out 
for straps. In addition, the initial positioning in R14 seems to be 
without any load placed on the body block, so there is no control on 
the position of the blocks once the loading starts. The position of the 
blocks might be much different depending on whether the vehicle belts 
or straps are used. By contrast, the test procedure in this final rule 
mandates the position of the blocks when the preload is applied, 
regardless of whether the vehicle belts or straps are used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ The test procedure for the FAD does specify resting the FAD 
against the seat back, but does not specify cinching the FAD against 
the seat back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Alliance's suggestion for ensuring that the 
lowest point of the torso block be rearward of the forwardmost point of 
the pelvic body block, this suggestion would also seem to require that 
the torso body block be pushed against the seat which we have decided 
against. Furthermore, the Alliance was commenting on the zone concept, 
similar to that used in FMVSS No. 222, which was initially used in 
developing body block zones, that uses the torso belt adjusted height. 
However, the final zones for positioning the body blocks are now based 
on the SgRP. Using the final zones, the lowest point on the torso body 
block may be located forward of the forwardmost plane on the top 
surface of the lap belt block that the Alliance is referring to, as 
shown in the docketed test reports. The fleet testing done in the 
development of the final body block zones showed that the body blocks 
can be positioned properly without interference with each other in the 
zones developed with the SgRP as the reference point.
    We are declining to specify the torso body block pivot point as in 
ECE R14. The current regulatory text only specifies (Figure 3 in FMVSS 
No. 210) the torso body block dimensions and the material used to cover 
the body blocks; it does not further specify the body block, such as 
weight, material, or the specific design (to which weight is 
correlated). Accordingly, the designs of

[[Page 76261]]

the torso body blocks that are in use in testing labs may and do 
differ. NHTSA's research found that test labs use torso body blocks 
that differ in weight and pivot point location.\94\ Our research 
identified a range of torso body block weights, ranging from 7.7 kg (17 
lb) to 13.7 kg (30.3 lb). Our research also identified two different 
types of torso body blocks designs in use that have different pivot 
point locations. One type has a yoke-style pull arm attached at the 
center rear of the body block; the pivot point is near the end of the 
body block nearest the seat. The second type is a front-pull style body 
block; the pivot point is at end of the body block furthest from the 
seat.\95\ Not specifying the pivot point location gives test labs the 
flexibility to continue testing with different styles of pull arm, as 
is currently the practice. Our testing examined the effect of the torso 
body block pull style on the body block position; it showed that the 
two different body block styles positioned differently at preload (an 
average difference in position of about 15 mm), and that the 
positioning was more repeatable for the front pull style. We included 
both types of body blocks in the fleet study, and this positioning data 
is included in the data set on which the finalized zone are based. The 
final zones therefore take the variation in the pivot point location 
into account. We also believe that it would be possible to position a 
torso body block with a pivot point in the location specified in ECE 
R14 within the zone specified in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ ``Pivot point'' refers to where the test load is applied 
(i.e., the point on the body block to which the actuator chain is 
connected). The standard does not specify the location of the pivot 
point. The laboratory test procedure depicts a point but does not 
define it. In addition, given the minimal design specifications in 
FMVSS No. 210, there could be additional body block designs in use, 
as evidenced by IMMI's comment.
    \95\ ``Development of Positioning Zones for FMVSS No. 210 Body 
Blocks,'' pgs. 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Canadian Test Method 210
Comments
    Global recommended that the agency should consider providing 
manufacturers the option to utilize the placement procedure specified 
in Canada Test Method 210, ``Seat belt anchorages.'' That standard is 
largely the same as the current FMVSS No. 210 (e.g., same body blocks 
and test requirements including the loads applied to the seat belts and 
hold time), but it also specifies an alternative approach that 
describes how to position the body block to prevent interference with 
the seat belt buckle.\96\ That procedure involves using a 50th 
percentile male test dummy to determine the maximum amount of webbing 
payout to use in positioning the body blocks to minimize the likelihood 
of buckle damage. The dummy is placed in the seat and belted with the 
slack removed. The belt is marked to indicate how far the belt extends 
from the retractor. The body blocks are then placed. If the belt buckle 
appears to be susceptible to damage from the test loads, the blocks can 
be moved forward, but not farther than where the belt was marked 
following the ATD placement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Transport Canada. 2010. Test Method 210, Seat Belt 
Anchorages, S2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    NHTSA acknowledges Global's concern about seat belt buckle 
interference,\97\ but NHTSA believes that the suggested procedures are 
not necessary. The finalized zones allow for positioning of the blocks 
to avoid seat belt buckle interference. As discussed in the agency's 
research study, the use of positioning devices, spacers, and manual 
manipulation were taken into consideration during the development of 
the body block zones. In addition, the standard does not require the 
use of the seat belts for testing, so if seat belt buckle interference 
cannot be avoided in a particular vehicle, the seat belt assembly can 
be replaced with a material of equal or greater strength (e.g., steel 
cable) to transfer the loads to the seat belt assembly anchorages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See NPRM at pg. 19158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Facilitating Consistent Positioning
Comments
    To facilitate consistent positioning of the body blocks, IMMI 
suggested creating a standardized positioning device and revising the 
design of the existing torso block to simplify and reduce mass. (IMMI 
also recommended increasing the preload to position the torso block. 
This possibility is discussed in section V.B.7.)
Agency Response
    The agency's research study evaluated IMMI's suggestions. As noted 
earlier, the current laboratory test procedure for FMVSS No. 210 has 
long instructed NHTSA's contractor test laboratories to apply a preload 
equal to 10% of the test force to the body blocks so that photographs 
and measurements of the load application angles can be taken. Next, the 
load is increased to the full test force. FMVSS No. 210 seat belt 
assembly anchorage testing specifies test forces of 22,241 N (5,000 lb) 
for the pelvic body blocks loading a Type 1 belt and 13,345 N (3,000 
lb) each for torso and pelvic body blocks loading Type 2 belts. NHTSA's 
research study evaluated the effects on body block position under 
preloads of 1,335 N and 2,224 N. The study found that the magnitude of 
the preload force did not have a significant effect on the body block 
position but noted that a 2,224 N preload force could begin to deform 
the seat prior to the required test force being applied. Accordingly, 
NHTSA has decided not to increase the preload force and the final 
regulatory text specifies the use of a preload force of 1,335 N for 
both pelvic and torso body blocks for testing Type 1 and Type 2 belts.
    The research study also took into consideration the use of a 
positioning device when developing the zones. NHTSA's research showed 
that very simple fixtures could be used to aid in the initial body 
block position, but that required preload positions could be easily 
achieved without the use of such aids. Accordingly, NHTSA has decided 
not to require the use of such a device and instead give test 
laboratories the flexibility to use whatever method they would prefer 
to reach the preload positions, as the preferred method may vary 
depending on the vehicle environment and the test laboratory's 
preferences. NHTSA also decided not to revise the design of the body 
blocks.
iv. FEA Modeling for Positioning the Body Blocks
    JCI's SNPRM comment noted that it establishes the appropriate 
positioning of the body blocks through finite element analysis (FEA) 
modeling for its evaluation testing, but it recognizes that NHTSA's 
testing contractors would be unable to replicate that process.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ NHTSA-2012-0036-0026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We concur with JCI that it would not be a viable solution to 
require our testing laboratories to use FEA modeling to replicate the 
positioning used by the vehicle manufacturer for the FMVSS No. 210 
compliance tests, because the agency would not want to be limited to a 
manufacturer-specific position for the body blocks. In addition, FEA 
modeling would require an information collection to obtain detailed 
seat information about each designated seating position for the various 
trim packages of every vehicle, which would result in added cost and 
time burden to the agency and vehicle manufacturers.

[[Page 76262]]

C. Issues Common to the FAD and Body Blocks

1. Shoulder Belt Height Adjustment
    Neither the current regulatory text nor the regulatory text 
proposed for the FAD specify the shoulder belt anchorage height 
adjustment (also referred to as the D-ring).\99\ The laboratory test 
procedure for FMVSS No. 210 does specify that the ``center position'' 
for the shoulder height adjustment be used for the compliance test, and 
that if there is no center position, the contracting officer's 
technical representative will make the final decision as to which 
position will be tested. In NHTSA's fleet study testing to develop the 
body block zones, the D-ring was set to mid-height.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Some vehicles are equipped with seat belt anchorages and 
torso belt height adjusters that allow the shoulder belt's upper 
anchorage to be adjusted. The shoulder belt anchorage height 
adjustment is sometimes referred to as the D-ring and for outboard 
designated seating positions is typically attached to a pillar of 
the vehicle (e.g., B-pillar for front outboard seating positions).
    \100\ ``Development of Positioning Zones for FMVSS No. 210 Body 
Blocks,'' pg. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    The Alliance, commenting on the NPRM, questioned at what position 
the anchorage height adjustment (referred to by the Alliance as the 
``adjustable turning loop'') should be set (highest, mid, or lowest 
position).
Agency Response
    We have clarified the regulatory text to specify that the shoulder 
belt anchorage height adjustment (D-ring) may be set to any height. We 
note that the revised laboratory test procedure continues to specify 
the center position for the shoulder height adjustment. However, we 
also note (as also noted in the laboratory test procedure \101\) that 
the laboratory test procedure is intended only to provide guidance to 
NHTSA's compliance testing contractor, but that with respect to 
manufacturer certification, the test procedure in the regulatory text 
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ The laboratory test procedure for FMVSS 210 Seat Belt 
Assembly Anchorages states in Section 1 ``Purpose and Application,'' 
that ``[t]he OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by 
independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests 
for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the 
applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test 
Procedures do not include all the various FMVSS minimum performance 
requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the 
Test Procedures specify test conditions, which are less severe than 
the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, 
compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not 
necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification 
tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Preload Force Magnitude and Duration
    FMVSS No. 210 specifies that the test force (22,241 N for Type 1 
seat belts and 13,345 N on the lap portion and on shoulder portion for 
Type 2 seat belts) be attained in not more than 30 seconds and 
maintained for 10 seconds. FMVSS No. 210 does not currently specify a 
preload force. However, the laboratory test procedure has long provided 
that a preload of 10% of the required target load should be applied to 
the body block(s) at the onset of the test (i.e., 2,224 N for a pelvic 
body block loading a Type 1 seat belt and 1,335 N each for the torso 
and pelvic body blocks loading Type 2 seat belts); while at this load 
level, photographs and measurements of the load application angle are 
taken. NHTSA's fleet study examined the effect on body block position 
of each of these preloads, and concluded that they did not have a 
meaningful effect on the body block position.\102\ The SNPRM proposed 
specifying zones for the placement of the body blocks when a preload 
force is applied to the blocks. FMVSS No. 222, to which the SNPRM 
referred, specifies a preload force of 600  50 N be applied 
to the torso body block positioned under each torso belt.\103\ This 
preload force is, depending on the weight of the vehicle being tested 
(because the test forces specified in FMVSS No. 222 depend on vehicle 
weight), approximately 8 percent to 18 percent of the full test load. 
Neither the FMVSS No. 210 laboratory test procedure nor FMVSS No. 222 
specify a duration for the preload force application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ ``Development of Positioning Zones for FMVSS No. 210 Body 
Blocks,'' pg. 39.
    \103\ S5.1.6.5.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM did not explicitly address or provide for any preload 
force in connection with the FAD testing procedure; it simply specified 
a procedure for replacing FAD1(s) if there was contact ``after the FAD1 
devices are installed but prior to conducting the test.'' \104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Proposed S5.3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    In comments to the SNPRM, Honda requested clarification of when the 
30-second test force ramp-up starts in relation to the preload force. 
IMMI stated that the mass of the torso body block and load chain make 
it challenging to consistently position the torso body block and 
suggested that increasing the preload force could facilitate consistent 
positioning of the torso body block.
Agency Response
    The final rule specifies a preload force for the body blocks, but 
not the FAD. The test procedures in the regulatory text for the body 
blocks specify that the body blocks be positioned in the applicable 
zones with a preload of 1,335 N being applied to each. Because a lower 
preload is preferable from a laboratory safety standpoint and our 
testing found that it did not have a meaningful effect on positioning 
the body blocks, we decided not to specify the higher preload force, so 
the final rule specifies a preload for each body block of 1,335 N for 
both Type 1 and Type 2 seat belts.
    Although the final rule does not specify a preload for testing with 
the FAD, the longstanding laboratory test procedure for the body 
blocks--prior to use of the zones for positioning--has specified that a 
preload (equal to 10% of the target test load) be applied to allow 
verification of the required pull angle, apply tension to the pull 
chains, and take pre-test photographs. The updated laboratory test 
procedure will similarly specify a preload for the FAD equal to 1,335 N 
each at the pelvis and torso attachments for Type 2 belts and at the 
bridged pull yoke for Type 1 belts, to match the preload specified for 
the body blocks.
    When testing with the body blocks, we are specifying that there be 
no contact between the body blocks while the preload force is being 
applied. When testing with the FAD, we assess whether there is any 
contact between adjacent FAD1s before any preload is applied; if there 
is contact, a FAD1 is replaced with a FAD2 according to the FAD 
positioning procedure in the regulation text (S5.5).
    In response to Honda's comment, we clarify that the time during 
which the preload force is being applied is not part of the 30-second 
test force ramp-up, for either the body blocks or the FAD. For example, 
when testing with the body blocks, the 30-second ramp-up period 
commences once the body blocks have been positioned and the test force 
begins to be applied; therefore, positioning adjustments can be made 
before or during preload without interfering with the time requirements 
specified in the existing regulation. The final rule does not specify 
how long the preload force may or must be applied before the test force 
is applied. This is again consistent with the longstanding laboratory 
test procedure for the body blocks. The duration of the preload force 
will vary depending on the test

[[Page 76263]]

laboratory equipment and personnel, the type and number of seats being 
tested, and the type of test device used. We believe that variation in 
the duration of the preload force application will not affect test 
results because it is of such low magnitude; during NHTSA's long 
history of testing the anchorage strength requirements there has been 
no indication that preload affects test outcomes. Similarly, because 
the additional step of positioning the body blocks in the zones will 
occur during preload for the body blocks but not for the FAD, it is 
possible that the preload duration will be longer for the body blocks 
than for the FAD. For the same reasons, we believe this slight 
difference between the two test procedures will not affect test 
outcomes.
3. Seat Adjustment
    The longstanding regulatory text in FMVSS No. 210 states that 
before applying the test load the seat is placed ``in its rearmost 
position.'' \105\ The regulatory text proposed for the FAD positioning 
procedure specified that the seat (if adjustable) be placed in its 
rearmost position and, if separately adjustable in the vertical 
direction, at its lowest position.\106\ It also specified that the seat 
back (if adjustable) be placed at the manufacturer's design seat back 
angle, as measured by SAE J826 (July 1995).\107\ SAE J826 JUL95 defines 
and specifies a procedure, including a manikin, to determine the H-
point. The H-point is defined in relation to the hip location of a 
driver in the driver seating position. The H-point is used in several 
other NHTSA standards and represents a specific landmark near the hip 
of a 50th percentile adult male positioned in a vehicle's driver seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ S5.1; S5.2.
    \106\ NPRM at pg. 19162.
    \107\ NPRM at pg. 19162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now that the agency is reinstating the option to test with the body 
blocks using the refined test procedure (with the zone), we are 
modifying the proposed seat adjustment provisions by using the SgRP 
instead of the H-point. This modification is because the seat 
adjustment procedures specified in the final rule apply to both the FAD 
and the body blocks. Because the body block zone placement procedure 
uses the SgRP--not the H-point--we are modifying the seat adjustment 
procedure so that it uses the SgRP.
    Specifically, we are adding regulatory text to clarify that the 
seat is to be adjusted to the rearmost normal riding or driving 
position. The rearmost normal riding or driving position is specified 
by the manufacturer and includes all modes of seat adjustment, 
including horizontal, vertical, seat back angle, and seat cushion 
angle. We note that in the NPRM, the seat was proposed to be placed in 
its rearmost and lowest position when using the FAD, but no details 
were provided as to how such a position would be achieved. By 
specifying a seat position consistent with the SgRP, the agency is 
fully articulating a well-defined seat position with which all 
manufacturers are familiar. This information is typically already 
requested prior to testing by OVSC.
4. Seat Belt Pretension and Routing
    With respect to the FAD, the seating procedure proposed in the NPRM 
specified that, once the FAD is positioned on the seat, the tester must 
``[b]uckle 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.'' It then specified that the 
technician removes enough slack from the seat belt such that a 31.75 mm 
(1.25 inch) diameter wooden rod cannot 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. The proposed regulatory text 
did not specify with any more specificity how the belt should be routed 
over the FAD.
    With respect to the current body blocks, neither the current 
regulatory text nor the laboratory test procedure addresses seat belt 
tension or routing. NHTSA's research to develop zones for the body 
blocks did examine the effect of seat belt tension and belt routing. It 
found that the amount of seat belt webbing pulled out from the 
retractor had an effect on body block placement in the fore/aft 
direction (x plane); to address this circumstance, in the testing 
conducted in the study, the belt was marked at the D-ring at the 
desired length and locked at this position for the remaining 
positioning attempts on that seat. The study also examined the effect 
of seat belt routing on the torso block. The shoulder belt was 
initially placed at the center of the torso block belt path and the 
routing was not further controlled while the preload was applied. The 
study found that the routing of the shoulder belt on the torso block 
can affect its position.
Comments
    In comments to the NPRM, Honda and JCI discussed belt tension/
positioning with respect to the FAD. Honda asked NHTSA to clarify the 
proposed procedure with respect to measuring the load on and the 
displacement direction of the wooden rod. JCI commented that NHTSA's 
indicant testing of integrated seats \108\ showed that the seats posed 
difficulties for positioning the belts correctly,\109\ and commented 
that NHTSA should address this issue. With respect to the body blocks, 
IMMI commented that seat belt tension might vary between tests, 
resulting in variation in the position and/or movement of the body 
blocks at preload.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Integrated seats are equipped with seats belts built into 
the seat itself. In an integrated seat, the entire seat belt system 
is contained within the seat frame.
    \109\ JCI references Appendix F in ``Final Report: Development 
of a Combination Upper Torso and Pelvic Body Block for FMVSS 210 
Test, Revision A,'' May 22, 2003, KARCO Engineering, LLC (NHTSA-
2012-0036-0002) (referencing NHTSA-2012-0036-0002, p. 375). The 
reference material is a status report discussing development of the 
FAD positioning procedure. The page cited by JCE states that ``[t]he 
le Sabre's integrated seat did create some challenges in getting 
belt force gages [sic] and belt take up mechanisms on to the belt 
[sic].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    NHTSA has decided that the proposed procedure to remove slack when 
positioning the FAD is unnecessary. FMVSS No. 208 has long specified, 
in the context of positioning dummies for crash tests, the simple 
directive to ``remove all slack.'' \110\ In NHTSA's extensive 
experience with FMVSS No. 208 testing, this specification has not 
occasioned difficulties. Accordingly, rather than specifying a new test 
procedure for the same action, the regulatory text in the final rule 
has been modified to adopt this longstanding specification. With 
respect to JCI's comment, the challenges noted in the testing status 
report concern installing instrumentation for measuring belt force on 
the seat belt for the research tests. This testing was conducted for 
research purposes and is not part of the anchorage strength test, so it 
does not present an issue for FMVSS No. 210 compliance testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ S10.9, S16.3.5.4, S22.2.1.8.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the body blocks, the fact that belt tension and 
routing affect body bock placement at preload does not present an issue 
for real-world compliance testing. NHTSA addressed these factors in its 
research because in developing the body block zones, if we had used 
inconsistent amounts of slack across the different tests used to create 
the data set from which the zones were derived, doing so would have 
affected the data and led to unnecessarily large zones. In real-world 
compliance testing, test laboratories can adjust the amount of tension 
on, or routing of, the belt (or the material used to replace the belt) 
when positioning the blocks in the zone

[[Page 76264]]

at preload. Similarly, the routing of the belt on the torso block can 
be used for small adjustments to increase the distance between the 
torso and pelvic block to avoid interference. This technique was not 
required in this study because contact (interference) between the 
blocks was not observed before or during application of preload. 
Although webbing tension and belt routing affect the position of the 
block in the zone, they do not present a problem because the final rule 
explicitly provides that NHTSA, in testing for compliance, may position 
a body block (at preload) in any position in the applicable zone. A 
manufacturer must certify compliance at any position in the applicable 
zone.
5. Hold Time Requirement
    The NPRM did not propose to alter the amount of time the required 
test load must be held, which is 10 seconds.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ S5.1, S5.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    Honda, in its comments on the NPRM, requested that the required 
hold time be reduced to one second. Honda claims that ``a one second 
hold time more closely aligns test and actual crash condition 
requirements while maintaining a sufficient margin of safety in the 
testing standards.'' According to Honda, this proposed revision is 
consistent with NHTSA's reasoning on FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint 
anchorage systems.'' Honda noted that the final rule establishing FMVSS 
No. 225 (68 FR 38223) reduced the hold time from ten seconds to one 
second because it did not result in a reduction of safety because it 
still surpassed the time of the actual crash event.
Agency Response
    This issue is out of the scope of this rulemaking. NHTSA did not 
propose to alter the amount of time the required test load must be held 
in the NPRM. In any case, this change would potentially reduce the 
stringency of the requirements, which have been in place for well over 
40 years.
6. Force Application Angle
    The test procedure in the regulatory text has long specified that 
the forces be applied to the body block at an initial force application 
angle of not less than 5 degrees or more than 15 degrees above the 
horizontal.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ S5.1, S5.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency's research study evaluated the effect of the force 
application angle on the preload position of the body blocks. Position 
repeatability testing with force application angles of 5[deg], 10[deg], 
and 15[deg] showed that the pull angle had a small effect on the 
preload position; the results of three tests on multiple seating 
locations were within 1.3 inches (33 mm).
Comments
    IMMI identified the wide tolerance for the force application angle 
as a source of large variance in load paths; however, it stated this 
tolerance is needed for ease of setup.
Agency Response
    Because (as IMMI noted) a force application angle tolerance is 
desirable from a test setup perspective, the final rule retains the 
longstanding force application angle specification.
7. Use of a Dedicated Test Belt
    FMVSS No. 210, S5 specifies that, when testing the seat belt 
anchorages, ``the anchorage shall be connected to a material whose 
breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of 
the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment 
at that seating position.'' For instance, some test facilities replace 
the seat belt with steel cable.
Comments
    Honda, commenting on the NPRM, stated that a dedicated test belt 
that does not absorb energy is preferable when testing the strength of 
the seat belt assembly anchorages, and suggested that the standard 
should clarify that a ``dedicated test belt'' may be used for testing 
instead of the original seat belt installed in the vehicle.
Agency Response
    Use of a ``dedicated test belt'' that does not absorb energy is 
allowed under S5 of the current regulation, which is unchanged by the 
amendments in this document. NHTSA does not see a need to further 
clarify this standard.
8. Testing of Side-Facing Seats
    The NPRM noted that it was setting forth the proposed regulatory 
text in S4.2 without the clause ``except for side-facing seats,'' which 
appeared several times in the then-current S4.2. The agency explained 
that these clauses were made obsolete by an October 8, 2008 final rule 
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.\113\ We 
stated in the NPRM that a correcting amendment removing the clauses 
from S4.2 would be issued by the agency, and that in the meantime, the 
proposed regulatory text in the NPRM showed S4.2 in corrected form. 
That correcting amendment was published in 2013, with an effective date 
of December 16, 2013.\114\ Thus, side-facing seats in vehicles 
manufactured on or after that date were subject to the standard's 
strength requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ 73 FR 58887 (October 8, 2008). FMVSS No. 210 was amended 
in 1970 to add multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses to 
the scope of the rule, which up until then had covered only 
passenger cars. 35 FR 15293 (October 1, 1970). The 1970 amendments 
excluded side-facing seats from the strength requirements. In 2005, 
we proposed to remove this exclusion, as one component of a 
rulemaking proposal to amend the definition of ``designated seating 
position.'' 70 FR 36094 (June 22, 2005). However, when the agency 
published the DSP final rule in 2008 it inadvertently neglected to 
remove the exclusion for side-facing seats that appeared in S4.2.1 
and S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 210. 73 FR 58887 (October 8, 2008).
    \114\ 78 FR 68748 (November 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    We received a few comments regarding the applicability of the 
anchorage strength requirements to side-facing seats and the testing of 
side-facing seats to those requirements.
    The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) commented that, 
while the 2008 DSP final rule eliminated the exclusion for ``auxiliary 
seats,'' it believed that ``auxiliary or folding jumps seats'' do not 
automatically designate a seat as being side-facing. It stated it was 
concerned that because the previous definition of DSP (prior to the 
2008 DSP final rule) excluded ``auxiliary seating accommodations such 
as temporary or folding jump seats,'' removing the exclusion may not 
necessarily include side-facing seats, and that the current definition 
for DSP may exclude side-facing seats.
    NTEA also commented expressing concerns regarding the proposed 
regulatory text for vehicles manufactured before the effective date of 
the regulation. NTEA noted that the proposed regulatory text made it 
seem like side-facing seats in vehicles manufactured at any time before 
the effective date of this rulemaking--including before 12/16/2013, the 
effective date for the removal of the exclusion for side-facing seats--
were subject to the strength requirements of FMVSS No. 210. NTEA 
requested that NHTSA clarify the regulatory text so that it does not 
indicate that the anchorage strength requirements applied to side-
facing seats before the December 16, 2013, effective date of the 
amendments that removed the side-facing seat exclusion from the 
standard.

[[Page 76265]]

    DTNA commented about the direction of the pull force for side-
facing seats. DTNA stated that testing of side-facing seat belts in the 
direction perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle 
does not reflect real world requirements for these seat belts because 
the predominant forces exerted on any restraint in any vehicle will be 
in the direction parallel with the longitudinal centerline of the 
vehicle resultant from a collision impact when the vehicle is 
travelling in the forward direction.
Agency Response
    Regarding NTEA's comment on the scope of the eliminated exclusion 
for side-facing seats, the changes to FMVSS No. 210 S4.2 that became 
effective on December 16, 2013, removed the exclusion for side-facing 
DSPs from the standard's strength requirements. Effective December 16, 
2013, side-facing seats became subject to the anchorage strength 
requirements of the standard.
    Regarding NTEA's comment on the proposed regulatory text for 
vehicles manufactured before the effective date of this rule, we are 
modifying the regulatory text to remove any implication that side-
facing seats in vehicles manufactured before December 16, 2013, were 
subject to the anchorage strength requirements. DTNA's comment on the 
appropriateness of the test procedure for testing side-facing seats is 
outside the scope of this rulemaking, which is concerned with the 
method for applying the loads specified in the standard.
    Additionally, we wish to clarify that removal of the side-facing 
seat exclusion made no distinction as to whether a seat is side-facing 
or adjustable to side facing. Thus, it is the agency's position that 
seats that face any direction, or can be adjusted to any direction, are 
subject to FMVSS No. 210 in any direction to which they can be 
adjusted. However, we have added regulatory text to explicitly state 
this position and remove any ambiguity. This language works together 
with the final regulatory text's use of the term ``seat reference 
plane'' to define a vertical plane that passes through the SgRP of any 
seat and that is parallel to the direction that the seat faces. The 
specified test forces are applied parallel to the seat reference plane 
so compliance would be required for a seat that could be adjusted to 
face any direction.
9. Compliance Options
    The NPRM proposed replacing the current body blocks with the FAD 
for use as the testing device to transfer loads onto the seat belt 
assembly anchorages. The NPRM did not propose any exemptions or 
compliance options for vehicle manufacturers, such as making the use of 
the FAD optional or excluding certain vehicle types from having to use 
the FAD for testing. In the SNPRM, NHTSA explained that it was 
considering specifying, either instead of or as an alternative to the 
FAD, zones within which the current body blocks would be placed.
Comments
    As explained in section V.A, commenters had variety of concerns 
about the FAD. Accordingly, several NPRM commenters suggested adopting 
the FAD as an optional test device. JCI, in its comments on the NRPM 
and SNPRM, stated that the use of the FAD for testing should be phased 
in by making it an optional test device. Global supported the FAD if it 
were an optional test device. Navistar suggested making the use of the 
FAD an option for 30 years to avoid having to recertify vehicles that 
are already compliant since their vehicle life is between 20-30 years. 
The Alliance, commenting on the NRPM, argued that manufacturers should 
be given the option to use the current body blocks until Canada adopts 
the use of the FAD.\115\ Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) and Hino 
suggested making the FAD an optional test device to allow global 
manufacturers the option of using the current body blocks until testing 
with the FAD is globally harmonized. EMA, in its comments on the NPRM, 
proposed making the use of the FAD optional for manufacturers of class 
3 through 8 vehicles or exempting these vehicles from having to use the 
FAD. DTNA also wanted to make it an optional test device for vehicles 
with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ NHTSA-2012-0036-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with these NPRM comments, in response to the SNPRM, as 
noted earlier (section V.B.1), several commenters supported the 
continued use of the body blocks. EMA, FSC, Global, and the Alliance 
supported the FAD as an optional test device that could be selected by 
the manufacturer. Global also stressed the importance of harmonization 
and supported the idea of making the FAD an optional test device to 
provide manufacturers more flexibility until there is greater 
international harmonization. The Alliance further commented that 
maintaining the current body blocks as a compliance option would negate 
the durability, lead-time, and cost concerns it had with respect to the 
FADs.
Agency Response
    NHTSA has decided to retain the current body blocks and adopt the 
FAD as an optional test device. We believe that providing these two 
compliance options will allow the potential advantages of both test 
methods. There is a long history of compliance testing with the body 
blocks, and corresponding manufacturer familiarity with them. We retain 
this option, but at the same time, add more specificity to the test 
procedure so that there is no ambiguity about where the agency may 
position the blocks at preload. At the same time, we continue to 
believe that the FADs offer potential advantages, including ease of 
testing and the ability to test new configurations such as 4-point 
belts.
10. Regulatory Alternatives
    NHTSA considered alternatives to the final rule. In the preceding 
sections of this document, we have discussed various alternatives for 
different aspects of the proposed requirements. Executive Order 13609 
\116\ provides that international regulatory cooperation can reduce, 
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory 
requirements. Similarly, section 24211 of the Infrastructure, 
Investment, and Jobs Act directs that ``[t]he Secretary [of 
Transportation] shall cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, 
with foreign governments, nongovernmental stakeholder groups, the motor 
vehicle industry, and consumer groups with respect to global 
harmonization of vehicle regulations as a means for improving motor 
vehicle safety.'' \117\ (These directives are also discussed in the 
Regulatory Notices and Analyses section.) At the same time, the Safety 
Act authorizes NHTSA to establish motor vehicle safety standards that, 
among other things, are objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See discussion in the Regulatory Notices and Analyses 
section.
    \117\ H.R. 3684 (117th Congress) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    International regulations and industry consensus standards also 
establish seat belt anchorage strength requirements. NHTSA developed 
the FAD independently and it has not been adopted outside of the United 
States. On the other hand, other standards do mirror FMVSS No. 210 and 
specify the use of the body blocks. These standards include United 
Nations Regulation No. 14 (ECE R14), Transport Canada's Technical 
Standards Document No. 210, Australian ADR 05, and SAE Standard J384 
(2014). All these standards specify pelvic and torso body blocks 
similar to the FMVSS No. 210 body blocks. There are some differences 
between the test

[[Page 76266]]

procedures in FMVSS No. 210 and those in these other regulations. These 
international and consensus standards are explained in more detail in 
section II.E and in other sections of the document where relevant.
Comments
    We received comments regarding harmonization both with respect to 
the FAD and the body block zone concept.
    Force Application Device. JCI, Navistar, EMA, Nissan, DTNA, Global, 
and Honda all mentioned concerns with harmonization in their NPRM 
comments. EMA stressed that a change to the U.S. standard would be a 
significant departure from the worldwide harmonization that 
manufacturers and governments strive to achieve. JCI agreed with EMA 
and noted that in the absence of a safety need NHTSA should not create 
disharmony with global regulations. Navistar, Nissan, and Global 
commented that manufacturers would need to conduct additional testing 
because of this disharmonization. The Alliance also commented that 
continued use of the body blocks would facilitate harmonization with 
Transport Canada.
    Some of these commenters also suggested pursuing a global technical 
regulation (GTR). Global petitioned NHTSA to initiate the process for 
establishing a GTR under 49 CFR part 553, appendix C. Global commented 
that the longer time frame that would likely be necessary to adopt a 
GTR does not present a major concern. Honda and DTNA similarly noted 
that if the FAD were intended to facilitate testing or improve upon the 
body blocks, then a GTR would provide a better forum for developing it 
and facilitate global harmonization. JCI and Global reiterated their 
harmonization concerns in response to the SNPRM.
    Body blocks and/or zone concept. A couple of commenters noted that 
retaining the body blocks would support harmonization. JCI and Global 
commented that maintaining the body blocks would harmonize with the 
requirements in other countries.
    However, as noted earlier (see section V.B.1), comments from the 
Alliance, Global, FSC, Honda, and the People's Republic of China on the 
SNRPM appeared to question the appropriateness of specifying zones for 
the body blocks because they stated they believed it would not 
harmonize with regulations used in other countries or regions. The 
Alliance further recommended that NHTSA adopt the ECE R14, S6.3.4 
requirements for the positioning of the pelvic and torso block during 
the initial test set-up, including against the seatback, and Global and 
FSC also suggested that the body blocks be placed against the seat 
back. The People's Republic of China also suggested referring to the 
European standard for the pre-test positioning of the body blocks.
Agency Response
    NHTSA acknowledges that international harmonization is an important 
goal. We believe that by providing the FAD and the current body blocks 
together with the placement zone as compliance options, we are 
maintaining opportunities for harmonization with international 
standards since manufacturers may choose to continue testing with the 
body blocks.
    We do recognize that the implementation of the body block zones may 
conflict with ECE R14 since R14 requires that the pelvic block be 
``pushed back into the seat back while the belt strap is pulled tight 
around it,'' and the torso block must be ``placed in position, the belt 
strap is fitted over the device and pulled tight.'' \118\ Following 
this requirement could preclude the torso body block from being in the 
required zone, depending on how much the torso block pulls away from 
the seat back when the preload is applied. However, as we explain in 
section V.B.7.a, we believe this deviation from R14 is necessary to 
ensure the standard is enforceable in the U.S., and because the 
suggested method of pushing the body blocks against the seat and 
cinching the seat belt tightly could potentially impact the seat 
structure and anchorage performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ UN Regulation No. 14 Revision 7--7 August 2023, Section 
6.3.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GTRs are developed by the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle 
Regulations (WP.29) under the 1998 Agreement on U.N. Global Technical 
Regulations. The WP.29 established the 1998 Agreement primarily to 
extend the benefits of harmonization by focusing on performance-
oriented test procedures designed to quantify product behaviors as 
objectively as possible. This rulemaking would not impede the 
initiation of a GTR on seat belt anchorages. However, since the 
anchorage strength test in the current standard has been ruled 
unenforceable, the agency declines to delay amending the standard even 
further to wait for the initiation and completion of the GTR process.
11. Leadtime
    The NPRM proposed a compliance date three years from the date of 
publication of the final rule for certifying vehicles using the FAD. 
The agency had tentatively concluded that three years would be 
sufficient time for manufacturers to procure and familiarize themselves 
with the FADs. The SNPRM did not propose a revised lead time.
Comments
    Several commenters in response to the NPRM and SNPRM requested lead 
time extensions for a variety of reasons.
    In their comments on the NPRM, the Alliance, JCI, Hino, and Honda 
requested more time for additional certification testing, and/or design 
changes. For example, the Alliance stated that any time test procedures 
and hardware change, individual vehicle designs might have to be 
modified to remain in compliance; because FMVSS No. 210 directly tests 
a seat belt anchorage's structural integrity, any modifications needed 
to comply using the new test hardware and procedures would require 
changes to the vehicle structure. Such body-in-white structural 
changes, according to the Alliance, demand long lead-times. And, even 
if vehicle modification is not necessary, the new test hardware and 
procedures could require additional certification testing. JCI and Hino 
had similar comments. Accordingly, these commenters requested a longer 
lead time. JCI stated that seating structures are designed three to 
five years before a new vehicle is introduced, and in response to the 
SNPRM stated that a five-year lead time would be necessary to 
incorporate the FAD requirement. The Alliance requested that the FAD be 
an optional test device for a period of 8 to 10 years. Honda suggested 
a three-year lead time in part to give manufacturers time to modify its 
test procedures to include the use of FAD1 and FAD2.
    Some NPRM commenters argued that heavy vehicles and/or light trucks 
have long platform or model lives, and argued that a longer lead time 
was necessary to avoid significant additional costs. EMA and DTNA 
commented that 30 to 40 years of lead time was necessary for heavy-duty 
trucks. EMA explained that heavy truck cabs often stay in production 
for as long as 30 years because the heavy-duty market has relatively 
low volumes, so a manufacturer may use one basic cab structure for many 
product variations over time, such that the compliance testing that was 
done when the cab shell was originally developed often remains valid 
for many years. Accordingly, EMA believed that the only way to avoid 
the significant costs and potential liability

[[Page 76267]]

of re-testing is to allow at least 30 years of lead time before testing 
with a FAD would be required. (In response to the SNPRM, EMA suggested 
that the final rule should include a provision that the new 
requirements would only apply to newly developed cab structures since 
no safety need was established.) DTNA similarly commented that lead 
time should be 30 to 40 years. Hino stated that the model lives of 
heavy-duty trucks are longer than those for passenger cars and can 
exceed 10 years, and requested that that existing vehicle platforms be 
exempt from the new requirements for the entire model life of the 
vehicle with a maximum allowable period of 10 years from the effective 
date. The Alliance noted that vehicles such as light trucks can 
maintain a single body structure for many years, and requested a lead 
time of 8 to 10 years. RVIA commented that the use of the FADs should 
not be required until changes in the seating or vehicle structure 
requires retesting of the vehicle for compliance. EvoBus suggested a 
five-year lead time, because the proposed three years is too short with 
respect to the life cycles of current seats in buses and motorcoach 
buses.
    NPRM commenters also cited the time it would take to procure FADs 
as another reason for a longer lead time. JCI stated that the proposed 
use of the FAD would result in demand for large volumes of FADs, and 
that none are likely to be available in the marketplace until after the 
final rule is published. Because there is no identified safety need for 
new test devices, allowing the requisite time to transition to the FADs 
and/or allowing for their optional concurrent use would not detract 
from any safety enhancement. The Alliance estimated that it would take 
26 weeks before the first FADs could be delivered, and that additional 
time would be needed to gain experience using the FADs. Honda suggested 
that the effective date be three years from the time (after publication 
of the final rule) at which NHTSA can confirm that vehicle 
manufacturers, suppliers, and test laboratories have sufficient FAD 
inventories. Honda stated that this approach would accommodate the 
minimum six-month delivery time for dummy suppliers to produce dummies 
and the time required for every vehicle manufacturer, supplier, and 
test laboratory to purchase enough FADs. DTNA noted that it was unaware 
of who supplied the FADs and their availability.
Agency Response
    Providing vehicle manufacturers the option to continue to use the 
current body blocks or the FAD for certification should alleviate the 
lead time concerns with certifying vehicles using the FAD. We are 
providing a two-year lead time for both options. Consistent with 49 CFR 
571.8(b), multi-stage manufacturers and alterers would have an 
additional year to comply.
    We believe this is a reasonable lead time for the body blocks. The 
body blocks have been part of the regulatory test procedure for the 
anchorage strength requirements since 1970.\119\ The zones that we are 
adopting in this rule are simply a clarification of the existing test 
procedure. Whereas the current version of the standard does not specify 
where the agency will place the body block on the seat when conducting 
compliance testing, the amendments in this document specify zones 
within which the agency will place the body blocks. This specification 
essentially serves to restrict the agency's discretion by restricting 
the possible test configurations to those bounded by the zones. 
Accordingly, we do not believe that manufacturers should have more 
trouble certifying compliance with the amended body block test 
procedure than they do with the current version. Moreover, as we noted 
earlier, in the agency's history of compliance testing for the 
anchorage strength requirements there have been few failures, 
indicating that manufacturers generally do not have trouble passing 
this test; we do not anticipate any need for redesign of currently 
compliant seat belt anchorages. Nevertheless, we are providing a two-
year lead time to allow manufacturers to become familiar with the 
zones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ 35 FR 15293 (October 1, 1970) (final rule amending FMVSS 
No. 210 with, among other things, the body blocks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are providing the same two-year lead time for the FAD. If a 
vehicle manufacturer prefers not to certify using the FAD, or is 
interested in certifying using the FAD but concludes that it would not 
be able to do so within the two-year lead time, it can certify to the 
body blocks, as explained above. Manufacturers that are interested in 
certifying to the FAD but would like additional time to verify 
compliance of existing vehicle platforms may continue certifying to the 
body blocks until they are confident in certifying to the FAD.

VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866, 13563, and 14094 and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impacts of this regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14094, Executive Order 13563, 
and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures.\120\ This rulemaking action was not reviewed by the Office 
of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is also not considered 
``of special note to the Department'' under DOT Order 2100.6A. We have 
considered the qualitative costs and benefits of the proposed rule 
under the principles of E.O. 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ 49 CFR part 5, subpart B; Department of Transportation 
Order 2100.6A, Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures, June 7, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This document amends FMVSS No. 210 to specify zones for the 
placement of the currently-use body blocks, and to specify an optional 
alternative test device, the Force Application Device. The final rule 
makes minor changes to the existing test procedures that would apply to 
testing with either the body blocks or the FAD (minor changes in how 
the seat and shoulder belt anchorage height are adjusted). The final 
rule also sets out a simple procedure for positioning the body block, 
and simple procedures for choosing and seating the FAD. The amendments 
do not change the standard's strength requirements, and we do not 
expect these changes to have a meaningful impact on test outcomes. 
There are some minor costs and benefits compared to the baseline of 
testing with the body blocks without a zone placement procedure.
    Body Blocks with zone procedure. The benefit of the amendment is a 
more objective and repeatable test, which could ultimately reduce the 
potential need for re-testing. Because this is an additional step in 
the test procedure, there may be some minor, incremental costs--
primarily a somewhat increased time to set up for the test--associated 
with positioning the body blocks and ensuring that they are within the 
specified zones at the start of the test.
    Force Application Device. 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 the NPRM is the one-time 14 
purchase cost of the set, totaling $40,000. Because the use of the FADs 
is optional, manufacturers can choose to continue testing with body 
blocks and not incur the cost of purchasing FADs. As discussed above, 
the FADs require less effort, time, and personnel to install in the 
test vehicle. Thus, we believe that for manufacturers that chose to 
test using FADs, there would be associated

[[Page 76268]]

cost savings that could offset the purchase cost of the FADs. 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.

Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

    The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides 
that the regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ 
from those taken by the United States to address similar issues, and 
that in some cases the differences between them might not be necessary 
and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and 
compete internationally. It further recognizes that in meeting shared 
challenges involving health, safety, and other issues, international 
regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as 
protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such 
cooperation and can reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary 
differences in regulatory requirements.
    This rule is different from comparable foreign regulations. For the 
reasons described in this preamble, these differences are necessary to 
ensure the standard is enforceable in the U.S. and to give 
manufacturers additional compliance options.

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 final rule is not subject to the Executive order because it is 
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined this final 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 final rule would not have federalism implications because it will 
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 have preemptive effect 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. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory 
command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative 
and administrative law address the same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a 
savings clause under which ``[c]compliance 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.
    NHTSA rules can also preempt State law is if complying with the 
FMVSS would render the motor vehicle manufacturers liable under State 
tort law. 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 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, NHTSA has considered whether 
this 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 this rule and 
finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum 
safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this final rule 
will preempt State tort law that would effectively impose a higher 
standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by this 
rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law 
would not conflict with the minimum standard in this final rule. 
Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a 
State common law tort cause of action.

Severability

    The issue of severability of FMVSSs is addressed in 49 CFR 571.9. 
It provides that if any FMVSS or its application to any person or 
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the part and the 
application of that standard to other persons or circumstances is 
unaffected.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed 
and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and small 
Government jurisdictions. The Act requires agencies to prepare and make 
available an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) 
describing the impact of proposed and final rules on small entities. An 
RFA is not required if the head of the agency certifies that the 
proposed or final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The head of the agency has made 
such a certification with regard to this final rule.
    The factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) is set 
forth below. Although the agency is not required to issue an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis, this section discusses many of the 
issues that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis would address.
    Section 603(b) of the Act specifies the content of an RFA. Each RFA 
must contain:
    1. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being 
considered;
    2. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for a 
final rule;
    3. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities to which the final rule will apply;
    4. A description of the projected reporting, recording keeping and 
other compliance requirements of a final rule including an estimate of 
the classes of

[[Page 76269]]

small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of 
professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record;
    5. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant 
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the final 
rule;
    6. Each final regulatory flexibility analysis shall also contain a 
description of any significant alternatives to the final rule which 
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which 
minimize any significant economic impact of the final rule on small 
entities.
    A description of the reason why action by the agency is being 
considered and the objectives of, and legal basis for, the final rule 
are discussed at length earlier in this document.
    This final rule will directly affect manufacturers subject to FMVSS 
No. 210. The Small Business Administration'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 336211, Motor Vehicle Body 
Manufacturing, prescribes a small business size standard of 1,000 or 
fewer employees. NAICS code 336390, Other Motor Vehicle Parts 
Manufacturing, prescribes a small business size standard of 1,000 or 
fewer employees. Most motor vehicle manufacturers would not qualify as 
a small business. There are a number of vehicle manufacturers that are 
small businesses.
    This rule does not create any new reporting or recording 
requirements, nor does it affect any existing reporting or recording 
requirements. Small manufacturers have options available to certify 
compliance, none of which will result in a significant economic impact 
on these entities. The final rule provides manufacturers with the 
flexibility to determine the most cost-effective means of meeting the 
requirements. As a result, small manufacturers can choose which option, 
either continuing use of the body block or using the FAD, is most 
suitable for them.
    We know of no Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict 
with the final rule. The final rule provides compliance options 
(alternatives) to manufacturers, including small entities. This 
flexibility reduces the economic impact of the final rule on small 
entities. NHTSA also designed the final rule to provide two years of 
lead time for the use of the body blocks and the FAD as established by 
this final rule. It also provides an additional year for multi-stage 
manufacturers and alterers to comply with the final rule. (49 CFR 
571.8(b).) This additional year provides these entities flexibility and 
ample time--a total of three years from publication of a final rule--to 
work with seat manufacturers and/or incomplete vehicle manufacturers 
(both of which are large entities), or to undertake the evaluation 
themselves, to make the necessary assessments to acquire a basis for 
certifying their vehicles' compliance.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

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 issue of 
preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid control number from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). This final rule does not have any 
requirements that are considered to be information collection 
requirements as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA),\121\ ``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.'' \122\ However, if the use of such technical 
standards would be ``inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical, a Federal agency or department may elect to use technical 
standards that are not developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies[.]'' \123\ 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 SAE. The NTTAA directs the 
agency to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards. Circular A-119 directs that evaluating whether to use a 
voluntary consensus standard should be done on a case-by-case 
basis.\124\ An agency should consider, where applicable, factors such 
as the nature of the agency's statutory mandate and the consistency of 
the standard with that mandate.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-113, 110 Stat. 775 (1996).
    \122\ Id. at section 12(d)(1).
    \123\ Id. at section 12(d)(3).
    \124\ Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-119, ] 
5(a)(i), Federal Participation in the Development and Use of 
Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment 
Activities (Jan. 26, 2016).
    \125\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency identified an SAE standard (J384, Rev. 2014) that has 
testing recommendations for seat belt anchorages. The standard 
recommends the use of body blocks, similar to those currently specified 
in FMVSS No. 210, for applying the required test loads. SAE J384 
specifies test procedures for seat belt anchorages. It is nearly 
identical to FMVSS No. 210, with similar body block specifications (the 
torso body block has the same dimensions, but also includes a pull 
arm), test loads, and the option to replace the seat belt webbing with 
other material. The standard specifies a preload of 10%. The body 
blocks are positioned at each DSP and the seat belts are positioned 
around the blocks ``to represent design intent routing.''
    The SAE standard does not specify a zone for body block placement, 
nor does it permit the use of the FAD. The preamble explains why NHTSA 
believes

[[Page 76270]]

these deviations from consensus standards are justified. In short, the 
body block placement zones are necessary to ensure that the standard is 
enforceable. With respect to the FAD, manufacturers may continue to 
certify to the requirements as tested with the body blocks if they do 
not want to use this new test device. But NHTSA believes that the FAD 
does have advantages over the body blocks, including that the FADs 
require significantly less effort and time to install in a test 
vehicle.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) (UMRA) 
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 expenditures by States, local, 
or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 
1995) in any one year. Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross 
domestic product price deflator for 2022 results in $177 million 
(111.416/75.324 = 1.48). The assessment may be included in conjunction 
with other assessments, as it is here.
    This rule would not result in expenditures by State, local, or 
tribal governments of more than $177 million annually.
    UMRA requires the agency to select the ``least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule.'' As discussed above, the agency considered alternatives 
to the final rule and has concluded that the requirements are the most 
cost-effective alternatives that achieve the objectives of the rule.

Regulation Identifier Number

    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.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all documents 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the document (or signing it, if submitted on behalf of an 
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and E.O. 13563 require 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?
    NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain 
language in writing this rule. Please inform the agency if you can 
suggest how NHTSA can improve its use of plain language.

Submission of Confidential Information

    You should submit a redacted ``public version'' of your comment 
(including redacted versions of any additional documents or 
attachments). This ``public version'' of your comment should contain 
only the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made 
and from which those portions for which confidential treatment is 
claimed has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to 
do this.
    You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment 
directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential 
treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth 
the information specified in part 512. This information includes the 
materials for which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in 
more detail below); supporting information, pursuant to Sec.  512.8; 
and a certificate, pursuant to Sec.  512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A.
    You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one 
unredacted ``confidential version'' of the information for which you 
are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec.  512.6, the words 
``ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' or ``CONFIDENTIAL 
BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS'' (as applicable) must 
appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be 
confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the 
page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information 
for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: ``[ ].''
    You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one 
redacted ``public version'' of the information for which you are 
seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec.  512.5(a)(2), the 
redacted ``public version'' should include redactions of any 
information for which you are seeking confidential treatment (i.e., the 
only information that should be unredacted is information for which you 
are not seeking confidential treatment).
    NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable 
method for submitting confidential business information to the agency 
under part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for 
confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be 
sent to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at 
[email protected]. You may either submit your request via email 
or request a secure file transfer link. If you are submitting the 
request via email, please also email a courtesy copy of the request to 
John Piazza at [email protected].

VII. Appendices to the Preamble

A. Appendix A: List of Comments

                          Comments to the NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Commenter                            Comment ID
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.......         NHTSA-2012-0036-0009
American Honda Motor Co., Inc..............         NHTSA-2012-0036-0016
Association of Global Automakers...........         NHTSA-2012-0036-0021
Daimler Trucks North America LLC...........         NHTSA-2012-0036-0010

[[Page 76271]]

 
EvoBus GmbH................................         NHTSA-2012-0036-0004
Freedman Seating Company...................         NHTSA-2012-0036-0008
Hino Motors, Ltd...........................         NHTSA-2012-0036-0006
Johnson Controls, Inc......................         NHTSA-2012-0036-0015
National Truck Equipment Association.......         NHTSA-2012-0036-0007
Navistar, Inc..............................         NHTSA-2012-0036-0013
Navistar, Inc..............................         NHTSA-2012-0036-0014
Nissan North America, Inc..................         NHTSA-2012-0036-0012
Recreation Vehicle Industry Association....         NHTSA-2012-0036-0017
Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association.         NHTSA-2012-0036-0011
T[Uuml]EV Rheinland Kraftfahrt gMBH........         NHTSA-2012-0036-0005
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Comments to the SNPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Commenter                            Comment ID
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.......         NHTSA-2012-0036-0025
American Honda Motor Co., Inc..............         NHTSA-2012-0036-0030
Association of Global Automakers, Inc......         NHTSA-2012-0036-0029
Freedman Seating Co........................         NHTSA-2012-0036-0027
IMMI.......................................         NHTSA-2012-0036-0024
Johnson Controls Inc.......................         NHTSA-2012-0036-0026
Jung Ho Yoo................................         NHTSA-2012-0036-0031
People's Republic of China.................         NHTSA-2012-0036-0032
Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association.         NHTSA-2012-0036-0028
------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Comments to the Notice of Availability of Technical Documents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Commenter                            Comment ID
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.......         NHTSA-2012-0036-0047
Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association.         NHTSA-2012-0036-0048
------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 
vehicles, Tires.

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

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.


0
2. Amend Sec.  571.5 by adding paragraphs (k)(8) and (9) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  571.5  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (8) ``Drawing Package for the Force Application Device 1 (FAD1),'' 
April 9, 2024, into Sec.  571.210.
    (9) ``Drawing Package for the Force Application Device 2 (FAD2),'' 
April 9, 2024, into Sec.  571.210.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  571.210 by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions of ``Actuator,'' 
``Bridged pull yoke,'' ``FAD,'' ``FAD1,'' ``FAD2,'' ``Midsagittal 
plane,'' and ``Seat reference plane'' to paragraph S3;
0
b. Revising paragraphs S4.2.1 and S4.2.2;
0
c. Adding paragraph S4.2.6;
0
d. Revising paragraphs S5, S5.1, and S5.2;
0
e. Adding paragraphs S5.3, S5.3.1, S5.3.2, S5.4, and S5.5;
0
f. Removing Figures 2A, 2B, and 3;
0
g. Adding Figures 2A, 2B, 3, 6, 7, and 8 in numerical order at the end 
of the section; and
0
h. Adding Table 1 at the end of the section.
    The revisions and additions 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.
    Bridged pull yoke means the yoke that bridges the torso and pelvis 
on the FAD1 or FAD2 and is used for testing Type 1 seat belt 
assemblies.
    FAD means the force application device, either the FAD1 or the 
FAD2, a one-piece device consisting of an upper torso portion and a 
pelvic portion hinged together.
    FAD1 means the larger version of the force application device 
specified in drawings NHTSA221-210-01, ``Drawing Package for the Force 
Application Device 1 (FAD1),'' April 9, 2024 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  571.5). FAD1 is depicted in figure 7 to this 
standard (figure provided for illustration purposes).
    FAD2 means the smaller version of the force application device 
specified in drawings NHTSA221-210-01J, ``Drawing Package for the Force 
Application Device 2 (FAD2),'' April 9, 2024 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  571.5). FAD2 is depicted in figure 8 to this 
standard (figure provided for illustration purposes).
    Midsagittal plane means the vertical plane that separates the FAD 
into equal left and right halves.
* * * * *
    Seat reference plane means 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.
* * * * *

[[Page 76272]]

    S4.2 Strength.
    S4.2.1 Seats with Type 1 or certain Type 2 seat belt assemblies.
    (a) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 17, 2024, and 
before September 1, 2027, 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, at the choice of the manufacturer, S5.1(a), 
(b), or (c):
    (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 September 1, 2027, 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, at the choice of the manufacturer, S5.1(b) or (c):
    (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 Seats with certain Type 2 or automatic seat belt assemblies.
    (a) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 17, 2024, and 
before September 1, 2027, 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, at the choice 
of the manufacturer, S5.2(a), (b), or (c):
    (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 September 1, 2027, 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, at the choice of the 
manufacturer, S5.2(b) or (c):
    (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).
* * * * *
    S4.2.6 Manufacturer's choice of compliance option. The manufacturer 
shall select the compliance option by the time it certifies the vehicle 
and may not thereafter select a different option for the vehicle. Each 
manufacturer shall, upon the request from the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, provide information regarding which of the 
compliance options it selected for a particular vehicle or make/model.
* * * * *
    S5. Test procedures.
    (a) General provisions. Where a range of values is specified, the 
vehicle shall be able to meet the requirements at all points within the 
range. The anchorage shall be connected to material whose breaking 
strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the 
webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment at 
that seating position. The geometry of the attachment duplicates the 
geometry, at the initiation of the test, of the attachment of the 
originally installed seat belt assembly.
    (b) Seat adjustment. If adjustable, the seat shall be adjusted in 
the following way. Using any seat adjustment controls, place the seat 
and its components into the configurations and positions of the 
rearmost normal design driving or riding position consistent with the 
seating reference point (SgRP), where rearmost is in reference to the 
direction the seat is facing. The seat may face any direction in which 
it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion.
    (c) Shoulder belt anchorage height adjustment. The shoulder belt 
anchorage height adjustment (D-ring) may be set to any height.
    S5.1 Seats with Type 1 or certain Type 2 seat belt assemblies.
    (a) Apply a force of 22,241 N (5,000 pounds) in the direction in 
which the seat faces to a pelvic body block as described in figure 2A 
to this standard, in a plane parallel to the seat reference plane with 
an initial force application angle of not less than 5 degrees or more 
than 15 degrees above the horizontal. Apply the force at the onset rate 
of not more than 222,411 N (50,000 pounds) per second. Attain the 
22,241 N (5,000 pound) force in not more than 30 seconds and maintain 
it for 10 seconds. At the manufacturer's option, the pelvic body block 
described in figure 2B to this standard may be substituted for the 
pelvic body block described in figure 2A to apply the specified force 
to the center set(s) of anchorages for any group of three or more sets 
of anchorages that are simultaneously loaded in accordance with S4.2.4.
    (b) Choose the FAD(s) in accordance with S5.4 and position the 
FAD(s) in accordance with S5.5. Apply a force of 22,241 N (5,000 
pounds) to the actuator attachment point of the bridged pull yoke 
attached to the FAD1 or FAD2 in the direction in which the seat faces, 
in a plane parallel to the seat reference plane with an initial force 
application angle of not less than 5 degrees or more than 15 degrees 
above the horizontal. Apply the force at the onset rate of not more 
than 222,411 N (50,000 pounds) per second. Attain the 22,241 N (5,000 
pound) force in not more than 30 seconds and maintain it for 10 
seconds.
    (c) Apply a force of 22,241 N (5,000 pounds) in the direction in 
which the seat faces to a pelvic body block as described in figure 2A 
to this standard and positioned in accordance with S5.3.1, in a plane 
parallel to the seat reference plane with an initial force application 
angle of not less than 5 degrees or more than 15 degrees above the 
horizontal. Apply the force at the onset rate of not more than 222,411 
N (50,000 pounds) per second. Attain the 22,241 N (5,000 pound) force 
in not more than 30 seconds and maintain it for 10 seconds. At the 
manufacturer's option, the pelvic body block described in figure 2B to 
this standard may be substituted for the pelvic body block described in 
figure 2A to apply the specified force to the center set(s) of 
anchorages for any group of three or more sets of anchorages that are 
simultaneously loaded in accordance with S4.2.4.
    S5.2 Seats with certain Type 2 or automatic seat belt assemblies.
    (a) Apply forces of 13,345 N (3,000 pounds) in the direction in 
which the seat faces simultaneously to a pelvic body block (as 
described in figure 2A to this standard) and an upper torso body block 
(as described in figure 3 to this standard) in a plane parallel to the 
seat reference plane with an initial force application angle of not 
less than 5 degrees or more than 15 degrees above the horizontal. Apply 
the forces at the onset rate of not more than 133,447 N (30,000 pounds) 
per second. Attain the 13,345 N (3,000 pound) force in not more than 30 
seconds and maintain it

[[Page 76273]]

for 10 seconds. At the manufacturer's option, the pelvic body block 
described in figure 2B to this standard may be substituted for the 
pelvic body block described in figure 2A to apply the specified force 
to the center set(s) of anchorages for any group of three or more sets 
of anchorages that are simultaneously loaded in accordance with S4.2.4.
    (b) Choose the FAD(s) in accordance with S5.4 and position the 
FAD(s) in accordance with S5.5. Apply forces of 13,345 N (3,000 pounds) 
in the direction in which the seat faces simultaneously, to the eye 
bolt attached to the pull bracket of the torso pull yoke on the FAD and 
the thru hole on the pelvis of the FAD in a plane parallel to the seat 
reference plane with an initial force application angle of not less 
than 5 degrees or more than 15 degrees above the horizontal. Apply the 
forces at the onset rate of not more than 133,447 N (30,000 pounds) per 
second. Attain the 13,345 N (3,000 pound) force in not more than 30 
seconds and maintain it for 10 seconds.
    (c) Position a pelvic body block (as described in figure 2A to this 
standard) and an upper torso body block (as described in figure 3 to 
this standard) as described in S5.3. There shall be no contact between 
the pelvic and torso body blocks at the end of the preload force 
application (i.e., before the test force is applied). Apply forces of 
13,345 N (3,000 pounds) in the direction in which the seat faces 
simultaneously to the pelvic body block and the upper torso body block 
in a plane parallel to the seat reference plane with an initial force 
application angle of not less than 5 degrees or more than 15 degrees 
above the horizontal. Apply the forces at the onset rate of not more 
than 133,447 N (30,000 pounds) per second. Attain the 13,345 N (3,000 
pound) force in not more than 30 seconds and maintain it for 10 
seconds. At the manufacturer's option, the pelvic body block described 
in figure 2B to this standard may be substituted for the pelvic body 
block described in figure 2A to apply the specified force to the center 
set(s) of anchorages for any group of three or more sets of anchorages 
that are simultaneously loaded in accordance with S4.2.4.
    S5.3 Body Block Zones.
    S5.3.1 Pelvic Body Block Zone.
    (a) With a 1,335 N (300 pound) force being applied to the pelvic 
body block in the direction in which the seat faces, the target 
depicted in figure 2A or figure 2B to this standard shall lie within 
the zone described in S5.3.1(a)(1) through (3) and in table 1 to this 
standard (and depicted in figure 6 to this standard):
    (1) At or rearward of the transverse vertical plane of the vehicle 
located 50 mm longitudinally forward of the SgRP and at or forward of 
the transverse vertical plane located 155 mm rearward of the SgRP.
    (2) At or below the horizontal plane located 210 mm above the SgRP 
and at or above the horizontal plane 65 mm above the SgRP.
    (3) At or rightward of the plane parallel to the seat reference 
plane and located 170 mm to the left of the SgRP and at or leftward of 
the plane parallel to the seat reference plane and located 170 mm to 
the right of the SgRP.
    S5.3.2 Torso Body Block Zone.
    (a) With a 1,335 N (300 pound) force being applied to the torso 
body block in the direction in which the seat faces, the target 
depicted in figure 3 to this standard shall lie within the zones 
described in S5.3.2(a)(1) through (3) and in table 1 to this standard 
(and depicted in figure 6 to this standard):
    (1) At or rearward of the transverse vertical plane of the vehicle 
located 230 mm longitudinally forward of the SgRP and at or forward of 
the transverse vertical plane located 10 mm rearward of the SgRP.
    (2) At or below the horizontal plane located 425 mm above the SgRP 
and at or above the horizontal plane 180 mm above the SgRP.
    (3) At or rightward of the plane parallel to the seat reference 
plane and located 265 mm to the left of the SgRP and at or leftward of 
the plane parallel to the seat reference plane and located 265 mm to 
the right of the SgRP.
    S5.4 Choice of FAD.
    (a) If testing in accordance with S4.2.4, position a FAD1 in 
accordance with S5.5 at each DSP being simultaneously tested. If there 
is contact between adjacent FAD1s when positioned as required by S5.5, 
or if adjacent FAD1s cannot be positioned as required by S5.5 due to 
contact with each other, then replace the FAD1(s) according to the 
following hierarchy.
    (1) For forward or rearward facing designated seating positions:
    (i) If contact occurs between a FAD1 in an inboard seat and a FAD1 
in an outboard seat, replace the FAD1 in the inboard seat with a FAD2.
    (ii) If contact occurs between adjacent FAD1s in inboard seats, 
replace the FAD1 on the right-hand side (as viewed in the direction the 
seat is facing) with a FAD2. For multiple instances of contact between 
FAD1s, begin replacing FAD1s at the rightmost seating position.
    (iii) If contact occurs between an inboard FAD1 and an inboard 
FAD2, replace the FAD1 with a FAD2.
    (iv) If contact occurs between a FAD1 in an outboard seat and a 
FAD2 in an inboard seat, replace the FAD1 in the outboard seat with a 
FAD2.
    (2) For non-forward and non-rearward facing designated seating 
positions:
    (i) If contact occurs between adjacent FAD1s, replace the FAD1 on 
the right-hand side (as viewed in the direction the seat is facing) 
with a FAD2. If contact remains, replace the FAD1 on the left-hand side 
with a FAD2. For multiple instances of contact between FAD1s, begin 
replacing FAD1s at the rightmost seating position.
    S5.5 FAD Positioning Procedure.
    (a) Place the FAD1 or FAD2 on the seat such that the midsagittal 
plane is parallel to and within 10 mm of the seat reference plane, with 
the torso portion of the FAD contacting the seat back.
    (b) While keeping the midsagittal plane within 10 mm of the seat 
reference plane, move the pelvis portion of the FAD toward the seat 
back until it contacts the seat back.
    (c) If the torso is not in contact with the seat back, rotate the 
torso portion of the FAD while holding the pelvis in place until the 
back of the torso contacts the seat back.
    (d) Buckle and position the seat belt so that the lap belt secures 
the pelvis portion of the FAD and the shoulder belt secures the torso 
portion of the FAD.
    (e) Remove all slack from the seat belt.
    (f) If testing a Type 2 or Type 2A seat belt assembly, attach one 
actuator to the eye bolt attached to the pull bracket of the torso pull 
yoke on the FAD and one to the thru hole on the pelvis of the FAD. If 
testing a Type 1 seat belt assembly, attach the actuator to the 
actuator attachment point on the bridged pull yoke attached to the FAD.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 76274]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE24.013

Figure 2A to Sec.  571.210--Body Block for Lap Belt Anchorage and 
Target Location
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE24.014

Figure 2B to Sec.  571.210--Optional Body Block for Center Seating 
Positions Lap Belt Anchorage and Target Location

[[Page 76275]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE24.015

Figure 3 to Sec.  571.210--Body Block for Combination Shoulder and Lap 
Belt Anchorage and Target Location

* * * * *

[[Page 76276]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE24.016

Figure 6 to Sec.  571.210--Body Block Zones (provided for illustration 
purposes)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE24.017

Figure 7 to Sec.  571.210--FAD1 (provided for illustration purposes)

[[Page 76277]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE24.018

Figure 8 to Sec.  571.210--FAD2 (provided for illustration purposes)

                                           Table 1 to Sec.   571.210-Coordinates of the Vertices From the SgRP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Coordinates of Zone Vertices from SgRP; [(X,Y,Z) in (mm) and (in)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vertices of Torso Body Block Zone  T1           (230, 265, -425)                     Vertices of Pelvic   P1          (50, 170, -210)
                                                (9.1, 10.4, -16.7)                    Body Block Zone.                (2, 6.7, -8.3)
                                   T2           (230, -265, -425)                                         P2          (50, -170, -210)
                                                (9.1, -10.4, -16.7)                                                   (2, -6.7, -8.3)
                                   T3           (230, 265, -180)                                          P3          (50, 170, -65)
                                                (9.1, 10.4, -7.1)                                                     (2, 6.7, -2.6)
                                   T4           (230, -265, -180)                                         P4          (50, -170, -65)
                                                (9.1, -10.4, -7.1)                                                    (2, -6.7, -2.6)
                                   T5           (-10, 265, -425)                                          P5          (-155, 170, -210)
                                                (-.4, 10.4, -16.7)                                                    (-6.1, 6.7, -8.3)
                                   T6           (-10, -265, -425)                                         P6          (-155, -170, -210)
                                                (-.4, -10.4, -16.7)                                                   (-6.1, -6.7, -8.3)
                                   T7           (-10, 265, -180)                                          P7          (-155, 170, -65)
                                                (-.4, 10.4, -7.1)                                                     (-6.1, 6.7, -2.6)
                                   T8           (-10, -265, -180)                                         P8          (-155, -170, -65)
                                                (-.4, -10.4, -7.1)                                                    (-6.1, -6.7, -2.6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95 and 501.5.
Sophie Shulman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-19727 Filed 9-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C