[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 5, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70477-70479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20487]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2006--25453]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking requesting that 
the agency amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 
``Occupant crash protection,'' to include belted test dummies in the 
rear seats of the dynamic crash tests, and to include a cargo test for 
occupant protection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Christopher Wiacek, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-4801, Facsimile: (202) 366-
4329.
    For legal issues, you may contact Edward Glancy, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-5263, 
Facsimile: (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Petition

    On August 12, 2004, the agency received a petition from Larry E. 
Coben of the law firm Coben & Associates, and Alan Cantor of the 
consulting firm ARCCA, Inc. requesting two safety amendments to Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant Crash 
Protection.'' First, the petitioners requested an amendment to include 
belted test dummies in the rear seats of the dynamic crash tests. 
Second, the petitioners requested that the agency adopt an unrestrained 
cargo test, as defined by the United Nations under Economic Commission 
for Europe (ECE) Regulation 17, ``Uniform provisions concerning the 
approval of vehicles with regard to the seats, their anchorages and any 
head restraints.'' In support of their position, the petitioners 
submitted test data to the agency on August 24, 2004.

A. Part 1--Rear Seat Occupant Protection

    The first aspect of the petition requested amending the existing 
FMVSS No. 208 frontal barrier crash tests (or an equivalent sled test) 
to include new performance requirements for an assortment of belted 
test dummies positioned in rear seats. The petitioners recommended 
selecting amongst the 95th percentile male, 50th percentile male, 5th 
percentile female, and 6-year-old child dummy sizes, and adopting FMVSS 
No. 208 injury criteria for the head, neck, chest and femurs. They also 
recommended adopting a new method of assessing abdominal injury risk. 
The petitioners noted that FMVSS No. 209, ``Seat belt assemblies,'' 
FMVSS No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages,'' and the equipment 
provisions of FMVSS No. 208 do not have dynamic performance 
requirements for rear seat restraints. The petitioners further stated 
that applying the same injury criteria to instrumented rear seat 
dummies that are applied to front seat dummies in frontal crashes is 
warranted, and would not cause any undue expense.

B. Part 2--Unrestrained Cargo Test

    The second aspect of the petition requested that the agency amend 
FMVSS No. 208 to include an unrestrained cargo test, as specified in 
the European seat standard, ECE 17, and to adopt the pass/fail criteria 
employed in that standard. The petitioner noted that ECE 17 was adopted 
to ensure that vehicles maintain sufficient strength to protect 
occupants from displaced luggage that may be thrown into the back of 
vehicle seats in a frontal impact. The petitioners noted that FMVSS No. 
208 (or any other standard) does not account for cargo that is 
regularly placed in the luggage/storage areas of passenger cars, vans, 
sport utility vehicles, and applicable trucks. The petitioners stated 
that the use of unrestrained cargo in FMVSS No. 208 tests would provide 
an assessment of the passive barrier that lies between the cargo 
compartment and rear seat occupants.

II. Discussion of Part 1--Rear Seat Occupant Protection

A. Data From Petitioner

    On August 24, 2004, the petitioners provided frontal impact crash 
test data using a 1995 model year Hyundai Scoupe in conjunction with 
their petition.\1\ Frontal impact crash tests were conducted at both 48 
km/h and 64 km/h with a 5th percentile female Hybrid III dummy placed 
in the left rear seating position, restrained by a lap/shoulder belt. 
According to the petitioners' data, the dummy experienced injury 
measurements in excess of the maximum head injury measurements 
applicable under FMVSS No. 208 in both tests. Additionally, the dummy's 
chest acceleration measurement exceeded the criterion in the 48 km/h 
test and was nearly exceeded in the 64 km/h test. Examination of the 
films revealed that the 5th percentile female dummy's head contacted 
the dummy's knees in the 48 km/h test, and contacted the front driver 
seat back and later its own knees in the

[[Page 70478]]

64 km/h test. In the 48 km/h test, the dummy was positioned in a normal 
seating position as described in FMVSS No. 208; however, in the 64 km/h 
test, the dummy's upper torso was positioned away from the seat back 
and the head was tilted downward. The petitioner did not provide any 
information on why the dummy positioning was different in the 64 km/h 
test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the crash data, see the docket for this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Relevant Agency Actions

    The dynamic performance of front outboard seats and restraint 
systems in light passenger vehicles (with a gross vehicle weight rating 
of 3,856 kilograms or less) is evaluated through dynamic crash tests in 
FMVSS No. 208. As the petitioner noted, rear seat belts are required to 
meet various component tests as prescribed in FMVSS Nos. 209 and 210, 
and the equipment provisions of FMVSS No. 208. Prior to 1989, only lap 
belts were required in rear outboard seating positions. On June 14, 
1989, NHTSA published a final rule (54 FR 25275) that required the 
installation of lap and shoulder belts in rear outboard seats of 
passenger cars other than convertibles. NHTSA published a second final 
rule (54 FR 46257) on November 2, 1989 to extend the rear outboard lap/
shoulder belt requirement to convertibles, light trucks, vans, and 
small buses, other than school buses. Over time, these rear lap/
shoulder belts have been found to be 15 percent more effective than lap 
belts alone in all crashes, and 25 percent more effective in reducing 
the risk of death in frontal crashes.\2\ More recently, on December 8, 
2004, NHTSA published a final rule (69 FR 70910) requiring lap and 
shoulder belts in rear center seating positions in most passenger cars 
and light duty passenger vehicles. These rear center lap/shoulder belts 
were first required on September 1, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Effectiveness of Lap/Shoulder Belts in the Back Outboard 
Seating Positions,'' Pages 20 and 88, Evaluation Division, Plans and 
Policy, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, 
DC, June 1999, DOT HS 808 945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has also evaluated the merits of including child dummies in 
the New Car Assessment Group (NCAP) program pursuant to the 
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation 
(TREAD) Act. Section 14(b) of this Act directed the Secretary of 
Transportation to determine ``whether to include child restraints in 
each vehicle crash tested under NCAP.'' Two notices have been published 
on the agency's efforts in this area: Notice of final decision on the 
NCAP programs for child safety, published in the Federal Register (70 
FR 29815) on May 24, 2005, and response to comments, notice of decision 
for NCAP, published in the Federal Register (70 FR 75536) on December 
20, 2005. These documents discuss the agency's decision to maintain the 
current frontal impact test procedures while conducting the necessary 
research to evaluate if and how the program could be modified to 
include child dummies.

C. Analysis of Petition

    NHTSA currently is continuing a research program to examine rear 
seat occupant protection. The program to advance rear seat occupant 
protection includes analytical and sled test simulations to determine 
advanced restraint system feasibility and improved restraint geometry 
in rear seats. Test dummies of different sizes are included in rear 
seats of frontal crash tests, when feasible.\3\ The objective of the 
program is to examine the performance of existing rear seat restraints, 
assess the effectiveness of advanced rear restraint systems and 
evaluate the biofidelity of various anthropomorphic test devices in the 
rear seat. NHTSA is collaborating with various restraint and vehicle 
manufacturers to develop and evaluate effective restraints for the rear 
seat. NHTSA's Special Crash Investigations and CIREN programs also plan 
to conduct detailed examination of select crashes involving rear seat 
occupants with serious to fatal injuries. The agency will use this data 
to assess the dynamic performance of rear seat restraints in real world 
crashes. We are also studying this data to establish a correlation 
between testing and real world crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Feasibility considerations include, but are not limited to: 
additional cost, additional timing, added weight, data acquisition 
capabilities, and potential interference with other aspects of the 
test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Implementation of the petitioners' request to amend FMVSS No. 208 
at this time would be premature. As discussed in a Federal Register 
notice responding to a petition for rulemaking from Mr. James E. 
Hofferberth (71 FR 25130), NHTSA currently has an insufficient amount 
of data on child dummies in a FMVSS No. 208 crash environment to 
conduct a thorough crash test analysis. Also, the agency does not have 
sufficient research and testing that would be needed to incorporate the 
95th percentile adult male dummy into the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards. The information provided by the petitioners gave no new 
insight in this area.
    At this point in time, the agency has concluded that further study 
is needed and research will continue in order to make a definitive 
determination on potential requirements for rear seat occupant 
performance.

III. Discussion of Part 2--Unrestrained Cargo Test

A. Additional Data From Petitioner

    On August 24, 2004, the petitioners provided sled test data using a 
model year 1995 Hyundai Scoupe in support of their petition. Tests were 
conducted at 48 km/h and 64 km/h following the ECE 17 protocol using 
unrestrained simulated luggage in the cargo area. Seat back deformation 
and locking mechanisms were monitored in the tests. The petitioner 
provided electronic video files \4\ showing unrestrained cargo contact 
with the seat back, seat latch failure, and forward movement of the 
seat back during the event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For the sled test data, see the docket for this notice. 
Reference: sled tests 24953, 24954 and 24955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Relevant Agency Actions

    FMVSS No. 207, ``Seating systems,'' establishes the minimum 
performance requirements for both the strength of seat backs and the 
seat attachment to the vehicle. The standard specifies that the seat 
restraining device shall not release or fail when the required load is 
applied to the seat back. Effectively, this provides occupants with 
some level of protection from loose cargo displaced during a crash. 
Alternatively, ECE 17 requires a dynamic impact test with simulated 
cargo. The requirement is deemed to be met if, during and after the 
dynamic impact test, the seat back remains in position and the locking 
mechanisms remain in place. However, during the test, deformation of 
the seat back and its fastenings is permitted provided that the forward 
contour of the seat back and/or head restraint does not move forward 
past specified limits. While FMVSS No. 207 and ECE 17 have distinct 
performance tests, we have no data at this time to suggest that the 
field-relevant performance of one approach is superior to the other.
    To identify the current safety problem associated with loose cargo 
and seat performance in vehicles that comply with FMVSS No. 207 in the 
current fleet, NHTSA examined real world crash data from the 2000-2004 
National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-
CDS) where an occupant sustained an AIS 3+ injury from contact with an 
``interior loose object,'' in a frontal crash where there is a ``seat 
performance failure.'' The NASS-CDS data collection term ``interior 
loose object'' includes any interior items that are not a direct

[[Page 70479]]

part of the vehicle; these items are not necessarily located in the 
rear cargo area. A ``seat performance failure'' includes seat hardware 
failure, seat deformed by intrusion or occupant impact or other failure 
mechanism. We identified one case where an AIS 3+ injury was reported 
from contact with ``interior loose objects'' and there was a ``seat 
performance failure.'' We then manually reviewed the individual case 
file \5\ for accuracy in the reporting and relevancy to the frontal 
crash test procedure proposed. After a careful review of the relevant 
case file, it was concluded that this was not an incident where loose 
cargo from the luggage area of the vehicle compromised the seat 
performance, intruded into the passenger compartment, and caused a 
direct injury to the occupants in a frontal crash. This is not to say 
that there are not anecdotal cases that occur in the real world. 
However, our query of five years of NASS data yielded no cases matching 
the above criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NASS-CDS case reference: 2004-049-105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Analysis of Petition

    Analysis of the available real world data does not indicate that 
the incidences and severity of motor vehicle occupants injured from 
unrestrained cargo as a direct result of a seat performance failure in 
motor vehicle crashes is a safety problem that would warrant an 
amendment to the Federal standard at this time. While there may be 
anecdotal cases of displaced cargo intruding into the passenger 
compartment and injuring occupants, the agency has not been able to 
quantify the safety problem beyond a review of the NASS data. More 
research would be needed to substantiate a correlation between cargo 
intrusion and occupant safety resulting from seat deformation or 
failure. The petitioners also did not provide any field data 
demonstrating such a problem. Furthermore, for the agency to pursue a 
rulemaking adopting the ECE 17 requirement, considerable research and 
testing would be needed on the effectiveness of a seat back deflection 
measurement to reduce occupant injury and the design and cost of 
potential countermeasures beyond the current requirements specified in 
FMVSS No. 207. The petitioners did not provide such information.

IV. Conclusion

    After carefully considering all aspects of the petitions, the 
agency has decided to deny them. As stated above, the agency has 
undertaken research in some areas of concern identified by the 
petitioners. Making a determination to amend the standards prior to the 
completion of this research would be premature. Additionally, other 
areas of concern identified by the petitioners would require 
substantial research to address. While the agency may in the future 
consider adding additional dummies or unrestrained cargo to its frontal 
crash test and/or other programs, it is not appropriate to consider 
rulemaking at this time. In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this 
completes the agency's review of the petition.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30162; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: November 29, 2006.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E6-20487 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P