[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 140 (Thursday, July 22, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43787-43789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-16655]


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

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 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 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