[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