[Federal Register: July 22, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 140)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43787-43789]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22jy04-26]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2002-12411]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by
Mr. Paul Wagner of Bornemann Products to amend Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, ``Seating systems.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Louis Molino,
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-112, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone (202) 366-1833. Fax: (202) 366-4329. For legal issues: Eric
Stas, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. The Petition
II. Additional Data from Petitioner
III. Discussion
A. Summary of Relevant Regulatory Issues
B. Analysis of the Petitioner's Argument
IV. Conclusion
I. The Petition
On October 28, 1997, the agency received a petition \1\ from Paul
N. Wagner, President, Bornemann Products Incorporated (Bornemann)
requesting, ``that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
initiate rulemaking on the necessary test procedures for a seating
system that incorporates all safety belt anchorages on the seating
system, so as to specifically define the testing processes required
accordingly. If denied, it is requested that the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration reaffirm that the current test standards
for seating systems hold as written.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Docket Management System NHTSA-2002-12411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the petition, Bornemann referenced an August 3, 1994 amendment
to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant
crash protection,'' (59 FR 39472), which had the goal of providing
adjustability of Type 2 seat belts to improve the fit and increase the
comfort of the belt for a variety of different sized occupants as means
of increasing belt use. Section S7.1.2.2(a) of FMVSS No. 208 states
that the adjustability requirement does not apply to a seat ``which is
adjustable fore and aft while the vehicle is in motion and whose seat
frame above the fore-and-aft adjuster is part of each of the assembly's
seat belt anchorages.'' This effectively exempts seats that have the
torso belt anchored to the seat belt (integrated seats). The petitioner
drew the conclusion that, therefore, NHTSA believes that integrated
seats ``would be an appropriate way to promote further seat belt use.''
Bornemann pursued the manufacture of integrated seats. The petition
states that ``[i]n the development process, it was noticed that
different recliner mechanisms, or reclining devices, used in certain
integrated seating systems tested could suffer a change in detent, or
reclined position, due to the design of the recliner adjustment latch,
or `teeth'; these teeth in the reclining device, which provide the back
strength to an integrated system, when tested with the prescribed loads
in 571.210, would actually shear during the test loading, and
deform dramatically.'' Correspondence between Bornemann and NHTSA and a
series of letters of interpretation from NHTSA from 1994 to 1997 \2\
established:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Docket Management System NHTSA-2002-12411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance testing for FMVSS No. 207, ``Seating systems,''
requires the attachment of a reinforcing strut between the seat back
and seat base to facilitate inertial load application through the
seat's center of gravity. The seat belt loads specified in FMVSS No.
210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages,'' are applied simultaneously with
the seat inertial loading, including the load applied to the torso belt
anchored to the seat back.
The seat must stay in the pre-load position of adjustment
during the test.
FMVSS No. 210 may be applied independently of FMVSS No.
207. No reinforcing strut is applied when testing to FMVSS No. 210.
However, under FMVSS No. 210, the seat recliner may fail without
jeopardizing compliance.
Bornemann believes that when FMVSS No. 207 is applied to integrated
seats and the belt anchorages are tested under S4.2(c) of FMVSS No.
207, ``the struts attached to the seat actually may become a
strengthening apparatus for the seat back itself for this test.'' This
in turn fails to test the requirement that the seat stay in the pre-
load position of adjustment. Bornemann goes on to state that ``the
issue to be determined by the Agency would be to ascertain whether or
not this adjustment issue should be applied to the recliner mechanism
in the specific circumstance.''
II. Additional Data From Petitioner
On July 15, 1998, the agency sent a letter to Mr. Wagner, asking
for more supporting information. In response to the agency's request,
Bornemann conducted an integrated seat test program. Tests were
performed on three identical seat designs. The seat recliners tested
were modified by Bornemann
[[Page 43788]]
specifically for these tests and did not represent any existing design
by any manufacturer. The tests were as follows: A FMVSS No. 210 test
(no struts), a FMVSS Nos. 207/210 combined test (with struts), and a 56
km/h (35 mph) velocity change sled test with a 50th percentile male
dummy occupant. In letters dated May 27, 1999, and June 8, 1999, Mr.
Wagner provided the results of these three tests.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Docket Management System NHTSA-2002-12411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the first test (called the 210 test), the seat was subjected to
the FMVSS No. 210 belt anchorage load of 1,361 kg (3,000 pounds) on the
shoulder belt and 1,361 kg (3,000 pounds) on the lap belt. However, the
recliner mechanism reportedly failed, shearing the recliner gear teeth
and changing the detent during the test. The seat back moved forward
to, approximately, a 45 degree forward angle. This would not constitute
a failure in FMVSS No. 210 since the seat need only ``withstand'' the
applied loads and the belt anchorages did not separate from the seat.
Next, a new seat was subjected to a FMVSS Nos. 207/210 combined test
(called the 207 test), with the seat back support struts. In this test,
the seat withstood the loads with no change in adjusted position or
reported damage. The seat and the recliner successfully held the load,
with the seat back and seat base rotating as a unit and the seat back
moving to an approximately vertical position. Finally, a third test was
conducted with a 50th percentile male dummy belted into a new seat. The
sled test simulated a frontal crash with a 56 km/h (35 mph) change in
velocity and a 29 g peak acceleration. The results of this test
reportedly mimicked the first FMVSS No. 210 test, that is, the seat
recliner/lock failed causing the seat back to collapse forward.
III. Discussion
A. Summary of Relevant Regulatory Issues
FMVSS No. 207 requires the attachment of a reinforcing
strut between the seat back and seat base to facilitate inertial load
application through the seat's center of gravity. Seat belt loading
specified in FMVSS No. 210 is applied simultaneously with the seat
inertial loading, including the load applied to the torso belt anchored
to the seat back.
The seat must stay in the pre-load position of adjustment
during the test, yet the strut may prevent a failure that may have
occurred if the strut were not present.
The loads of FMVSS No. 210 may be applied independently of
the loads in FMVSS No. 207. No reinforcing strut is applied when
testing to FMVSS No. 210. However, under FMVSS No. 210, the seat
recliner may fail without jeopardizing compliance.
FMVSS No. 208 dynamically tests front outboard seats and
restraint systems in vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR)
of 3,856 kg (8,500 lbs) or less.
B. Analysis of the Petitioner's Position
In two interpretation letters to Bornemann, the agency noted that
in accordance with S4.2 of FMVSS No. 207, a seat must remain in its
adjusted position during the load application, and that the seat
recliner mechanism may not have its adjustment teeth shear during the
seat back strength tests.\4\,\5\ Further, Bornemann
correctly stated in its October 28, 1997 petition that S4.2(c) of FMVSS
No. 207 requires that when seat belt assemblies are attached to the
seat, the seat belt anchorage loading specified in S4.2 of FMVSS No.
210 is applied in conjunction with the FMVSS No. 207 loading. However,
S5.1.1(b) of FMVSS No. 207 permits the seat back to be braced by
securing struts on each side of the seat between the seat back and seat
base. This is done to facilitate load application through the seat's
center of gravity. For the case of an integrated seat, the struts will
alter the load path of the pull force applied to the upper torso
restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Letter of Interpretation from NHTSA to Paul N. Wagner of
Bornemann Products, Inc., December 23, 1994. Viewable on the
Internet at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/files/10392.html.
Docket Management System NHTSA-2002-12411.
\5\ Letter of Interpretation from NHTSA to Paul N. Wagner of
Bornemann Products, Inc., March 21, 1995. Viewable on the Internet
at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/files/10650.html. Docket
Management System NHTSA-2002-12411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a frontal impact, a belted occupant's body will be restrained by
the seat belts. In turn, these belts will load the seat belt anchors.
An upper torso anchor on a seat back would tend to apply a rotation
force or torque at the connection of the seat back to the seat base. In
most seat designs, the recliner mechanism or some other type of seat
back locking mechanism would resist this torque. The petitioner points
out that in the FMVSS No. 207 test procedure, the struts may strengthen
the seat back. Thus, the petitioner indicated that there is an inherent
conflict between the requirement that the seat, including the seat
back, remain in its adjusted position during the test, and the
requirement that the seat back is braced to the seat base prior to
testing. This leaves open the possibility that some seat back
restraining devices or recliner mechanisms might comply with FMVSS No.
207 as currently written, but would fail if tested in a non-braced
configuration. Further, the petitioner provided test data from a non-
production seat that complied with the FMVSS Nos. 207/210 combined
loading when braced, but in a sled test simulating a 56 km/h frontal
impact the recliner/lock of a non-braced seat failed, causing the seat
back to collapse forward.
The petition correctly states that a seat could also be subject to
FMVSS No. 210 apart from FMVSS No. 207. FMVSS No. 210 does not require
the attachment of a strut to the seat. However, failure of the recline/
lock mechanism would not result in noncompliance with FMVSS No. 210.
Based on our analysis of the information submitted by Bornemann, we
believe that the issue may merit further investigation. At its core, it
is a question of whether integrated seats are adequately and/or
appropriately tested by the current vehicle safety standards.
Integrated seats may be installed in the front or rear rows of
vehicles. In addition to having to comply with FMVSS Nos. 207 and 210,
front outboard seats in light passenger vehicles are dynamically tested
in order to establish that a vehicle meets the frontal barrier crash
test requirements found in S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208. FMVSS No. 208
utilizes instrumented test dummies in frontal barrier crash tests to
assess occupant protection. So we believe that there is sufficient
assurance that front outboard integrated seats will perform adequately.
However, seats located in the rear seating positions of vehicles are
not subject to performance requirements during the frontal barrier
crash tests in FMVSS No. 208.
NHTSA has in the past supported the development and implementation
of integrated seats.\6\ These seats have the potential of providing
better belt fit to their occupants because the torso belt moves as the
occupant moves the seat fore and aft. In rear impacts, they may assist
in preventing large relative motion between the occupant and the seat
back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Advanced Integrated Safety Seat, NHTSA Research and
Development Contract DTNH22-97-C-07003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Conclusion
There are insufficient data available now to assess the feasibility
of an improved test for integrated rear seats,
[[Page 43789]]
as requested in this petition. A new research effort would be needed to
generate this data. Consequently, we conclude that there is no
potential agency action that can result in initiation of the rulemaking
process in the near future. Since there is no possibility of rulemaking
action in the near future, the petition is denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.
Issued on: July 17, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-16655 Filed 7-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P