[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 85533-85535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27543]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0111]
RIN 2127-AM31


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection, 
Ejection Mitigation; Technical Corrections

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

ACTION: Final rule; technical corrections.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule corrects errors in Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ``Side impact protection,'' and in 
FMVSS No. 226, ``Ejection mitigation.'' The error occurred in FMVSS No. 
214 when an amendment to FMVSS No. 214 was transcribed into the Code of 
Federal Regulations. The error to FMVSS No. 226 arose as a result of a 
drafting error when NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 226. This final rule amends 
the standards to reflect the intent of the Agency when it issued the 
standards.

DATES: This rule is effective December 29, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Vincent Wu or Mr. James Myers, 
NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards, telephone 202-366-1740. 
Mailing address: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, 
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document corrects minor errors in FMVSS 
No. 214, ``Side impact protection,'' and FMVSS No. 226, ``Ejection 
mitigation.'' The first error resulted when the Federal Register 
transcribed regulatory text for FMVSS No. 214. The second error 
occurred when the Agency drafted the regulatory text for FMVSS No. 226 
in establishing the standard.

FMVSS No. 214

    On September 11, 2007, NHTSA published a final rule that 
incorporated a vehicle-to-pole test in FMVSS No. 214, ``Side impact 
protection.'' \1\ In response to petitions for reconsideration of the 
rule,\2\ NHTSA published a final rule on March 15, 2010 that, among 
other matters, corrected unit conversion errors in S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 of 
the standard.\3\ The March 15, 2010 final rule set forth the regulatory 
text for S6.1.3, ``Peak crush resistance'' as follows: ``The peak crush 
resistance shall not be less than two times the curb weight of the 
vehicle or 31,138 N (7,000 lb), whichever is less.'' 75 FR at 12140, 
col. 1 (emphasis added). Similar language was also included in the 
revised S6.2.3, which stated, ``Peak crush resistance. The peak crush 
resistance shall not be less than three and one half times the curb 
weight of the vehicle or 53,378 N (12,000 lb), whichever is less.'' Id. 
However, the phrase ``whichever is less'' was not included in S6.1.3 as 
published in the Code of Federal Regulations, though the phrase was 
included in S6.2.3 (49 CFR 571.214).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 72 FR 51908.
    \2\ March 15, 2010, 75 FR 12140. This was the second response to 
petitions for reconsideration of the 2007 final rule.
    \3\ S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 relate to Standard No. 214's door crush 
resistance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The door crush force requirements establish threshold protections 
for occupants from injury-causing intrusion into the occupant space 
that can occur during a side impact. The phrase ``whichever is less'' 
in S6.1.3 was meant to clarify which of the maximum door crush force 
levels applies to vehicles, depending upon the vehicle's curb 
weight.\4\ However, when the phrase was mistakenly eliminated, it 
created ambiguity and potentially implied that S6.1.3 required higher 
forces to be used than NHTSA had intended. Without the phrase, there is 
potential for manufacturer confusion and the possibility that some may 
certify to an overly stringent door crush force requirement than NHTSA 
intended. NHTSA (and, we believe, industry as a whole) has applied 
S6.1.3 with the understanding and effect that the ``whichever is less'' 
language was meant to be as it is in S6.2.3--see, e.g., NHTSA's test 
procedure (TP) manual for FMVSS No. 214 issued by NHTSA's Office of 
Vehicle Safety Compliance for testing vehicles to Standard No. 214. The 
TP has always aligned with the correct original regulatory text.\5\ 
That said, the absence of the phrase reduces the clarity of S6.1.3 and 
introduces an unintended ambiguity that NHTSA would like to correct. 
This technical amendment corrects the error by adding ``whichever is 
less'' back in S6.1.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Prior to the error, a vehicle with a curb weight less than 
3,500 lb (``vehicle A'') could have met a force requirement of 2 
times the vehicle curb weight, which would be a load of less than 
7,000 lb. Similarly, prior to the error, a vehicle with a curb 
weight greater than 3,500 lb (``vehicle B'') could have met a force 
requirement of 7,000 lb. After the error, the option was removed, so 
under S6.1.3, vehicle A was also subject to a test with a load of 
7,000 lb, and vehicle B was also subject to a load of two times its 
curb weight. NHTSA did not intend for the vehicles to have to be 
certified to both a force requirement of two times the curb weight 
and a 7,000 lb requirement.
    \5\ https://one.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/Associated%20Files/TP-214-s05.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FMVSS No. 226

    On January 19, 2011, NHTSA published a final rule establishing 
FMVSS No. 226, ``Ejection mitigation.'' The final rule intended to 
exclude from the applicability of the standard vehicles with no doors 
or with doors that are designed to be easily attached or removed so the 
vehicle can be operated without doors. In the notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) preceding the final rule, the Agency requested 
comment on whether ``[v]ehicles that have no doors, or exclusively have 
doors that are designed to be easily attached or removed so that the 
vehicle can be operated without doors'' were still being produced.\6\ 
NHTSA further explained that, ``Assuming the vehicles are being 
manufactured, NHTSA proposes excluding the vehicles on practicability 
grounds,'' and requested comment on the issue.\7\ Subsequently, in the 
final rule, NHTSA proceeded to exclude the vehicles in the text of the 
preamble. The Agency made its intent to exclude the vehicles in the 
final rule clear, explaining in the preamble that: ``Comments were 
requested but none were received on whether vehicles are still being 
manufactured that have no doors, or exclusively have doors that are 
designed to be easily attached or removed so that the vehicle can be 
operated without doors. NHTSA

[[Page 85534]]

proposed excluding these vehicles on practicability grounds. This final 
rule adopts the exclusion.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 74 FR 63180, 63220; December 2, 2009.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ 76 FR 3291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, notwithstanding the Agency's clear intent expressed by 
that preamble text, NHTSA inadvertently did not include this exclusion 
in the final rule's regulatory text, so it is not reflected in FMVSS 
No. 226 as set forth in the CFR (49 CFR 571.226). The practical effect 
of this error is likely inconsequential, because since the effective 
date of FMVSS No. 226, NHTSA has applied the standard as excluding such 
vehicles from FMVSS No. 226. Regardless, even if the practical effect 
of the error is inconsequential, NHTSA would like to correct this 
drafting error by adding the exclusion of the vehicles to S2, 
``Application,'' of the standard.

Effective Date

    NHTSA is making the changes effective on publication in the Federal 
Register. NHTSA is issuing these corrections in a final rule because 
NHTSA finds that notice and comment are unnecessary. The amendment to 
FMVSS No. 214 corrects an error that arose with publication of the 
standard in the CFR. The correction to FMVSS No. 226 is made to correct 
NHTSA's drafting error when the Agency issued the standard. The 
correcting amendments simply make technical corrections to align the 
regulatory text with NHTSA's expressed intent when the Agency issued 
the standards concerning the performance standard in No. 214 and the 
application of No. 226. The practical effect of these corrections is 
inconsequential. For the above reasons, NHTSA finds good cause for 
making this correcting amendment effective on publication in the 
Federal Register.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Rulemaking Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this final rule under Executive 
Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563, as well as under the Department of 
Transportation's administrative rulemaking procedures set forth in 49 
CFR part 5, subpart B. This final rule makes technical corrections and 
is not considered significant under these Executive orders. The rule 
corrects the regulatory text to align it with the Agency's intent in 
drafting the language at issue. There are no costs or benefits 
associated with this technical correction because the Agency has been 
operating as if the language changes included in this final rule have 
been in effect since the publication of the earlier final rules.

Executive Order 13771 (Regulatory Reform)

    As this final rule is nonsignificant, it is not subject to the 
offset requirements of E.O. 13771.

National Environmental Policy Act

    This final rule correcting the standards at issue will not have an 
adverse impact on the quality of the human environment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act (SBREFA) of 1996, I certify that this final rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule 
simply makes technical corrections and is not expected to have an 
impact on any entities.

Executive Orders 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to E.O. 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. This final rule simply makes technical 
corrections and does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule 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.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    When promulgating a regulation, E.O. 12988, ``Civil Justice 
Reform'' (61 FR 4729; February 7, 1996), specifically requires that the 
Agency must make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation, 
as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language the preemptive effect; 
(2) specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or 
regulation, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, 
displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear legal standard 
for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in clear language 
the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether administrative 
proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court; 
(6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7) addresses other 
important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of 
regulations.
    Pursuant to this order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive 
effect of this final rule is discussed above in connection with E.O. 
13132. This rule simply makes technical corrections and does not have 
any retroactive effect. There is no requirement that individuals submit 
a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative 
proceedings before they may file suit in court.

Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

    This final rule simply makes technical corrections and will have no 
effect on international regulatory cooperation.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This final rule simply makes technical corrections. There are no 
voluntary consensus standards that apply to this final rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule only makes technical corrections and is not subject 
to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. There are no costs 
associated with this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no Paperwork Reduction Act requirements associated with 
this technical correction.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an organization, 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 http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

[[Page 85535]]

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires.

    Accordingly, 49 CFR part 571 is amended by making the following 
correcting amendments:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 continues to read as 
follows:

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


0
2. Section 571.214 is amended by revising S6.1.3 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.214   Standard No. 214; Side impact protection.

* * * * *
    S6.1.3 Peak crush resistance. The peak crush resistance shall not 
be less than two times the curb weight of the vehicle or 31,138 N 
(7,000 lb), whichever is less.
* * * * *

0
2. Section 571.226 is amended by revising S2 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.226   Standard No. 226; Ejection mitigation.

* * * * *
    S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars, and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle 
weight rating of 4,536 kg or less, except walk-in vans, modified roof 
vehicles, convertibles, and vehicles with no doors or with doors that 
are designed to be easily attached or removed so the vehicle can be 
operated without doors. Also excluded from this standard are law 
enforcement vehicles, correctional institution vehicles, taxis and 
limousines, if they have a fixed security partition separating the 1st 
and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd rows and if they are produced by more than one 
manufacturer or are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7).
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95.
James C. Owens,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-27543 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


