Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Designated Seating Positions

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Designated Seating Positions

Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Designated Seating Positions

David L. Strickland
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
November 15, 2013

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68748-68757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0189]
RIN 2127-AL13

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Designated Seating
Positions

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document completes the agency's response to petitions for
reconsideration of an October 2008 final rule that amended the
definition of the term, ``designated seating position,'' as used in the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards, to facilitate the determination
of which areas within the interior of a vehicle meet that definition.
The final rule made the new definition applicable to vehicles
manufactured on and after September 1, 2010. Previously, the agency
granted petitions requesting one year of additional lead time until the
new definition became applicable, removal the portion of the regulatory
text stating that State tort law requirements are preempted, and
technical corrections. This final rule addresses the remaining issues
raised in the petitions for reconsideration and makes clarifying
changes to the manner in which designated seating positions are
measured. We are also including technical corrections addressing side-
facing seats and longer seating surfaces.

DATES: The effective date of this final rule is December 16, 2013.
Petitions for reconsideration must be received not later than
December 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Petitions must be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Louis Molino of the NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards by
telephone at (202) 366-1740, and by fax at (202) 493-2739.
For legal issues, you may contact David Jasinski of the NHTSA
Office of Chief Counsel by telephone at (202) 366-2992, and by fax at
(202) 366-3820.
You may send mail to both of these officials at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
III. Analysis of Petitions for Reconsideration
A. Definition of DSP
B. Analysis of Safety Problem
C. Seating Surface Measuring Procedure
1. Determination of the ``Front Leading Surface''
2. Determination of Seating Surface Width
3. Interior Trim at the Seating Surface Outer Edges
4. Seating Surface Interrupted by Interior Trim
5. Voids and Seat Separation
6. H-Point Interruptions
7. Folding, Removable, and Adjustable Seats
8. Closely Adjoining Seat Belt Buckles
D. Calculating the Number of DSPs
E. Consumer Information Label
F. SAE J1100
G. Technical Correction for Side-Facing Seats
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

On October 8, 2008, NHTSA published in the Federal Register a final
rule (October 2008 final rule) revising the definition of ``designated
seating position'' (DSP), as that term is used in the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), and providing a calculation procedure
for determining the number of seating positions at a seat location.\1\
The revised definition specifies more clearly the areas within the
interior of a vehicle that are regarded as being designated seating
positions for trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, passenger cars,
and buses. The rule also established a calculation procedure for
determining the number of DSPs at a seat location for trucks and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating less
than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), passenger cars, and buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 73 FR 58887 (Oct. 8, 2008) (Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0059).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The designation of a seating position has important safety
consequences. Under the FMVSSs, motor vehicle manufacturers must meet
various performance requirements for each interior location designated
as a seating position. For example, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, requires that each DSP in a light vehicle be provided with
the appropriate occupant crash protection system (e.g., air bag, seat
belts or both). Clarity in the definition of DSP is important for the
purposes of that standard because if a vehicle has fewer DSPs than the
number of individuals able to sit in it, one or more of those
individuals would not be protected by seat belts and/or other crash
protection systems.
In the October 2008 final rule, the agency stated that the revised
definition of ``designated seating position'' added clarity to the
existing definition and was not expected to have a substantial impact
on current vehicle designs. The degree to which seat designs exhibited
the characteristics that gave rise to the agency's concerns had
significantly lessened in the fleet. Manufacturers had either reduced
the width of the seating area to more accurately reflect the intended
occupancy or had provided additional DSPs.
The October 2008 final rule noted that the inclusion of auxiliary
seats in the definition of ``designated seating position'' and the
newly established procedure for determining the number of DSPs would
require minor redesign of a small number of vehicles. To allow
manufacturers the opportunity to make such redesigns, the agency
provided approximately two years of lead time, such that, on September
1, 2010, all vehicles would need to comply with the new requirements.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

We received ten petitions for reconsideration of the October 2008
final rule. The petitioners are SAE International (SAE), BMW North
America (BMW), the Alliance of

[[Page 68749]]

Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), Volkswagen of America
(Volkswagen), the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
(now Global Automakers), the American Association for Justice (AAJ),
Safety Research and Strategies (SRS), Toyota Motor North America
(Toyota), Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America (Mitsubishi), and Public
Citizen.\2\ Toyota also expressed its support for the Alliance's
petition. The petitions filed by SAE International and Toyota were
styled both as requests for interpretation and, alternatively if the
agency did not agree with their suggested interpretation, as petitions
for reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The AAJ petition was jointly filed by the AAJ, the
Association of Trial Lawyers of America--New Jersey, Consumer
Attorneys of California, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety,
the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, the Pennsylvania
Association for Justice, and the Washington State Trial Lawyers
Association. Public Citizen's petition was filed jointly by Public
Citizen and the Consumer Federation of America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a December 23, 2009 final rule,\3\ we provided a partial
response to these petitions. In response to petitions by the Alliance,
Global Automakers, Mitsubishi, and Volkswagen that sought additional
lead time for implementing the new definition of ``designated seating
position'' via a phase-in, we provided one year additional lead time so
that vehicle manufacturers would need to comply with the new rule on
September 1, 2011. In response to petitions from the AAJ and Public
Citizen, we removed language from the text of the DSP definition
stating that any State requirement, including any determination under
State tort law, premised on there being more DSPs than the number
contemplated in the definition, was preempted. We also addressed a
technical error pointed out in petitions from SAE, the Alliance, and
Global Automakers by correcting an erroneous cross reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ 74 FR 68185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analysis of Petitions for Reconsideration

A. Definition of DSP

Prior to September 1, 2011, the basis for determining whether a
location was considered a designated seating position was whether it
was a plan (i.e., side) view location capable of accommodating a person
at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female if the configuration
and design of the vehicle were such that it was likely to be used as a
seating position while the vehicle is in motion. The October 2008 final
rule replaced this definition with one setting forth a more objective
manner of determining whether a seating surface is considered a DSP. As
defined in the October 2008 final rule, a designated seating position
is a seat location with a seating surface width of at least 330 mm.
Global Automakers petitioned the agency to replace the 330 mm seat
cushion width specification with the prior language relying on the
capability of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female. Global
Automakers stated that this prior definition would achieve the agency's
intended goal because the formula for counting DSPs would still be
specified in section 571.10.
The agency is denying the petition to amend section 571.3 to revert
to the prior definition. We continue to believe that the seating
surface width measurement better reflects a location's ability to
accommodate an occupant. We also believe that the new definition is
more consistent with the seating width-based manner for calculating the
number of DSPs in section 571.10.
Global Automakers did not provide a compelling reason to revert to
the old definition. Its only assertion is that the DSP definition would
explain the agency's concept of a DSP. It is true that the 330 mm
specification for a DSP in the new definition was consistent with the
hip measurement of a 5th percentile adult female. However, as we stated
in the October 2008 final rule, our intent was to provide both a more
objective definition of DSP and a more objective method for determining
the number of DSPs at a seating location.\4\ The current 330 mm
specification better implements the agency's intent. Accordingly, we
are denying Global Automakers' request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See 73 FR 58888.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Analysis of Safety Problem

Two petitioners, Public Citizen and SRS, petitioned the agency to
amend the DSP definition, asserting that adequately updated data and
sound scientific techniques were not employed in developing the final
rule.
Public Citizen expressed its belief that the October 2008 final
rule did not close the regulatory gap regarding the provision of enough
seat belts for the number of designated seating positions. Public
Citizen asserted that the agency has not provided sufficient analysis
to support its assertions that the change in average seat width between
2001 and 2006 has reduced the safety problem. Public Citizen also
stated that the agency did not consider human factors related to
reduced seat belt use rates when a third occupant is seated in a
seating area with two DSPs. Public Citizen claimed that the agency did
not investigate whether the options of a void space or impediment would
discourage occupants from sitting in a space that is not a DSP, nor did
the agency have sufficient data to conclude that the reduction in
seating width has solved the problem of too many occupants sitting in a
seating area.
SRS also questioned the data that NHTSA used to reach its
conclusions. SRS reiterated concerns expressed in its comments on the
NPRM that the proposed impediment and void specifications were based on
inaccurate data. SRS also questioned the agency's reliance on these
measures in the absence of any scientific human factors analysis of the
potential effectiveness of designs to keep occupants from occupying a
non-DSP.
NHTSA addressed many of these issues in the October 2008 final
rule. Public Citizen and SRS did not provide any additional information
to the agency nor did they provide any suggested changes to the
requirements. In response to SRS's comments regarding the accuracy of
the data related to the Acura Integra 2-Door, the agency stated:

Safety Research and Strategies also stated that its analysis of the
data indicated that the incident rate of three occupants seated at
the 2-DSP rear seat of the Acura Integra 2-Door was twice as high as
presented in the PRE. The incident rates of the Acura were relied
upon by the agency in developing the impediment countermeasure.
However, it is unclear whether Safety Research and Strategies
evaluated data from the same period as in the agency's analysis.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ 73 FR 58889 n.2.

Although SRS characterized the agency's response as inadequate, in
response to SRS's comment, the agency's technical staff reviewed the
data in question for the inaccuracies cited by SRS and concluded that
the agency's original analysis was valid. Our position has not changed.
We do not believe any type of measure is necessary for all rows with
two DSPs. A measure, including an impediment, is only required if a
seating surface area is otherwise wide enough to be considered to have
three DSPs and the manufacturer does not want to add a third seat belt.
The purpose of the measure is to make clear to the consumer that the
seating surface is only intended for two occupants at a time.
We also believe that Public Citizen's and SRS's expectations for
the effectiveness of measures are overstated. In our Final Regulatory
Evaluation (FRE), we stated that we could not estimate the benefit of
the impediment/

[[Page 68750]]

void option.\6\ However, we do believe that impediments and voids could
reduce the risk of crash injuries because passengers would be less
likely to occupy unprotected spaces that are either unavailable
(because of a void between seating positions) or uncomfortable (because
of an impediment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0059-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency did not conduct a human factors analysis because we
identified a small target population in the FRE. The specifications
proposed in the NPRM and adopted in the final rule were largely based
upon vehicles that were identified as having low fatality rates and
employed an impediment or void in the second row. The agency attributed
the lower fatality rate to the impediment installed in the seating
surface, which deterred overcapacity and misuse. We continue to believe
that a human factors study is not necessary to achieve the aim of the
final rule, which is the identification of DSPs and improved
enforceability.
Based upon the agency's fleet survey, we did not expect impediments
or voids to be used in many vehicles. However, when used, we believed
their function was to provide consumers with information regarding the
vehicle's seating capacity. It was not the agency's intent for
impediments and voids to act as physical barriers or make it impossible
for a vehicle to be overloaded or misused. In the unlikely event that
an occupant considers sitting on an impediment or void and then cannot
locate a seat belt, we believe that it should be reasonably obvious to
the occupant that the location is not intended for occupancy while the
vehicle is in motion.
In the FRE, the agency identified a significant decrease in the
seat belt usage rate when comparing incidents in which two passengers
occupied a two-DSP seating area compared to incidents in which three
passengers occupied a two-DSP seating area. We believe this explains a
drop in the seat belt usage rate in these cases from 53.25 percent to
27.67 percent. It is reasonable to assume that this drop in usage rate
was due to the unavailability of a third seat belt in the row and the
possible inability of other passengers to use the seat belts that are
provided because of lack of physical space. We do not believe a human
factors study is necessary to explain this reduced seat belt use rate.
Public Citizen asserted that second rows of two-door SUVs had two-
DSP second rows. However, this is contrary to the agency's findings.
Most existing vehicles that did not comply with the new requirements
were sport coupes with non-traditional second row bench seats and
third-row seats on SUVs that were intended to have two DSPs, but the
seating surface width was sufficient to have three DSPs. The agency did
not identify any sedans or SUVs with a bench seating surface that had a
second row with two DSPs.
It remains the view of the agency that the reduced seat size
combined with the presence of only two seat belts will more clearly
indicate to occupants the capacity for which crash protection is
provided. This will prevent manufacturers from including wide bench
seats with only two seat belts unless an impediment or void is used
that will interrupt the seating surface. Although we expect the new
definition and requirements for seat separation to aid in eliminating
uncertainty as to the number of DSPs at a seating location, it is not
practical to require designs that would completely prevent consumers
from attempting to seat more occupants than a row or seat is designed
for.

C. Seating Surface Measuring Procedure

A number of the petitions raised issues related to the seating
surface measuring procedure. We have grouped these petitions into seven
separate issues, which we address below.
1. Determination of the ``Front Leading Surface''
SAE requested clarification on how the agency intends to determine
the ``front leading surface.'' The front leading surface is referenced
in determining the boundaries of the area in which the seating surface
width is measured. Specifically, section 571.10(c)(1) provides that the
``seating surface width'' is the maximum width of a seating surface in
a zone extending from a transverse vertical plane 150 mm (5.9 inches)
behind the front leading surface of a seating surface to a transverse
vertical plane 250 mm (9.8 inches) behind that front leading surface,
measured horizontally and longitudinally.
SAE stated that it interpreted the ``front leading surface'' as the
frontmost edge of the soft trim of the seat cushion, but would not
include the forward edge of unpadded components such as seat shields,
seat adjusters, or adjuster covers. SAE asked for confirmation of its
interpretation.
We agree with SAE that the ``front leading surface'' would include
soft trim, but would not include the unpadded trim components such as
decorative seat shields, seat adjusters, or adjuster covers. To reflect
this intent, we are amending the language of section 571.10(c) to make
clear that these unpadded trim components would not be considered part
of the seating surface for the purpose of determining the ``front
leading surface.''
Furthermore, SAE requested the agency's position on how the ``front
leading surface'' would be defined when seats are angled such that the
centerline of the seat is not parallel with the centerline of the
vehicle. SAE asked the agency for confirmation of its interpretation
that an ``X'' plane tangent to the frontmost edge of the seat cushion
is used to measure the 150 mm and 250 mm distance from the front
leading edge.
With respect to angled seats, the agency did not intend the ``front
leading surface'' to be defined in the manner described by SAE. Rather,
the agency intended the measurement zone to be determined from the
front leading surface of the seat in its ``forward'' facing direction
as defined in S4.3 of FMVSS No. 210, regardless of how the seat may be
oriented in the vehicle. That is, ``forward'' refers to the direction
in which the seat faces, rather than the direction the vehicle faces,
and the measurement zone would be oriented perpendicular to that
direction.
To reflect this interpretation, we are making an amendment to
section 571.10(c)(1). We believe the effects from this amendment will
be minimal because angled seats are not common.
2. Determination of Seating Surface Width
Global Automakers and Toyota requested that the agency clarify its
position on how the seating surface width is measured. Global
Automakers raised two specific scenarios. The first scenario involves
seat cushions whose outer edge slopes downward. Global Automakers was
not certain whether the measurement will be made from the outer edge of
the seat cushion (identified in A in Figure 1) or the point where the
top surface of the cushion begins sloping downward toward the side of
the seat (identified as B in Figure 1). Toyota interprets the language
as contemplating the seating surface width measurement to take place
between the vertical planes tangent to the outboard edges of the seat,
as indicated in Figure 2. Toyota stated that if its interpretation is
not correct, it was petitioning the agency to adopt its position.

[[Page 68751]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15NO13.000

NHTSA agrees with Toyota's interpretation that the seating surface
width will be determined from the maximum width between the vertical
planes tangent to the outboard edges of the seat. We note that in the
context of seat width measurement, the determination of what is
outboard is made with respect to the seat orientation and may not align
with what is outboard with respect to the vehicle. This measurement
procedure is more objective than the other measurement procedure
suggested by Global Automakers. It is not always clear at what point
the top surface of the seat cushions begin to slope downward to the
side because such surfaces may be rounded or uneven and seat cushions
can be pliable.
3. Interior Trim at the Seating Surface Outer Edges
Global Automakers also requested that the agency clarify its
interpretation on how the measurement will be taken for seat cushions
whose outer edge extends underneath interior trim. Global Automakers
noted that, in some cases (one of which is illustrated in Figure 3
below), the interior trim interrupts the ``nominal hip room'' using the
SAE H-point machine and that an occupant could not use the seating
surface under the trim.

[[Page 68752]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15NO13.001

Although the agency agrees that, in Global Automakers' example,
some portion of the ``seating surface'' may not be a location where an
occupant could actually sit, the amendment to the DSP definition was
designed to make the definition more objective. The new definition is
not based upon non-objective concepts such as the usability of the
seating surface by the occupant or ``nominal hip room.'' Manufacturers
will have to consider the usability of the space in designing the
vehicle; however, the DSP definition and measuring procedure make no
allowance for seating space that is made unusable by the positioning of
trim components such as body-side armrests.
NHTSA would measure the seating surface width from the plane
indicated in drawing A on Figures 1 and 3 above. NHTSA would only
consider a trim component in the determination of the seating surface
width if the trim makes contact with the top of the seat within the
measurement zone. To make this clearer, we are adding specificity to
the determination of the ``seating surface width.''
We clarify that the determination of the seating surface width is a
comparative measurement of all possible width measurements within the
measurement zone, given specific constraints. The seating surface width
is the maximum width determined by these comparisons. The constraints
on the measurements are that they are made between vertical planes that
intersect the outboard seat edges, unless the outboard edge is
interrupted by interior trim in contact with the top edge of the seat.
If the seating surface is interrupted by outboard interior trim in
contact with the top edge of the seat, the vertical plane used in
determining the seating surface width will be the plane that intersects
the most inboard point of contact between the interior trim and the
point of contact with the top of the seat. We have also added a figure
to the regulatory text to illustrate the measurement procedure,
including how trim components making contact with the seating surface
affect the measurement.
4. Seating Surface Interrupted by Interior Trim
Section 571.10(c)(2)(i)(A) provides an exception to the general
rule that adjacent seating surfaces are considered to form a single,
continuous seating surface. If adjacent seating surfaces are separated
by a fixed trimmed surface that has an unpadded top surface and a width
of not less than 140 mm (5.5 inches), those surfaces will not be
considered to be continuous.
Public Citizen petitioned the agency to eliminate the option to
separate adjacent seating surfaces with unpadded fixed trim. Public
Citizen stated its belief that, if a seat contains three 330 mm seating
spaces, the manufacturer should be required to have three DSPs with
three seat belt assemblies. Otherwise, Public Citizen argued that
manufacturers should be required to use voids to interrupt a seating
surface.
We are denying Public Citizen's request to remove the option to
separate seating surfaces with unpadded fixed trim. It is not
practicable in all vehicle types with a bench seat where the seating
cushion width would require three DSPs to provide restraints for three
DSPs, particularly in the case of rear seats of convertibles and sport
coupes. These seats are often close to the vehicle floor, where it
would be impractical or impossible to include a void in the seat
cushion. We also believe that a child seat positioned in the rear seat,
which may extend over the void, could be unstable during use and in a
crash. We are also concerned that, if such seats were required to have
three DSPs, three occupants would not be able to be seated comfortably,
which could reduce seat belt usage at such seating positions. We
believe that allowing manufacturers options for interrupting otherwise
continuous seating surfaces is the best approach to improving the
identification of DSPs by consumers.
SAE requested clarification on how the agency would consider trim
when measuring the seating surface. SAE provided two illustrated
examples, shown below, and asked for NHTSA's clarification on how
``trim'' would be defined.

[[Page 68753]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15NO13.002

In Example 1, SAE described an impediment in the middle of the seat
as an ``embedded convenience system.'' During the seating surface
measurement, the agency would first determine if the impediment meets
the requirements of sections 571.10(c)(2)(i)(A) or 571.10(c)(2)(ii).
SAE stated in its request that it was assumed that the conditions of
section 571.10(c)(2)(ii) were not met by the impediment.\7\ Therefore,
a determination would need to be made as to whether the impediment was
``a fixed trimmed surface whose top surface is unpadded and that has a
width not less than 140 mm (5.5 inches), as measured in each transverse
vertical plane within that measurement zone.'' Such a determination is
impossible to make from the schematic provided and may only be possible
from a physical examination of the impediment. If the impediment
satisfied the criteria, the seating width would end at the impediment's
edge, as shown by dimension ``B'' and ``C.'' However, if the impediment
did not satisfy the criteria, the agency would define the maximum
seating surface width as shown by distance ``A'' in Example 1. We think
this is clear from a reading of section 571.10(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ We address issues related to section 571.10(c)(2)(ii) in
section III.C.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAE asked about the measurement procedure with respect to Example
2. We believe this has been made clear both in the regulation and the
agency's test procedure. Assuming the shaded area is fixed, unpadded
trim surface, the determination of seat surface width depends on
whether the length of ``D'' is less than 140 mm. If ``D'' is less than
140 mm, then seating surfaces ``B'' and ``C'' form a continuous seating
surface and the number of DSPs would be calculated using measurement
``A.'' If ``D'' is at least 140 mm, seating surfaces ``B'' and ``C''
would have sufficient separation such that the number of DSPs for
seating surfaces ``B'' and ``C'' would be calculated separately based
on the length of ``B'' and ``C.''
SAE also asked whether the use of the word ``unpadded'' meant the
trim had to be uncovered or whether a fabric with minimal foam backing
would be considered unpadded. In the October 2008 final rule, the
agency merely defined the footprint that a trim impediment must cover
to allow manufacturers a degree of flexibility in assigning this
space.\8\ For example, a fixed unpadded trim surface could be used for
a convenience function such as a cup holder, tray, or storage and also
serve to divide seating surfaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See 73 FR 58891.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency did not define the term ``unpadded trim'' or provide
examples in the October 2008 final rule. This was intentional. We did
not want to be unnecessarily design restrictive or prevent
manufacturers from implementing creative solutions that would appeal to
consumers and still provide visual cues regarding the number of DSPs in
a given row. To address SAE's question, we do not intend the term
``unpadded'' to mean that the trim cannot be covered. Unpadded trim,
even if covered with material such as fabric, leather, or vinyl solely
for aesthetic purposes, will be significantly harder than the more
pliable foam and covering used for the seat cushion and would make
sitting on the surface unwelcoming, which would deter its use as a
seating surface.
5. Voids and Seat Separation
Toyota requested clarification regarding the width measurement of a

[[Page 68754]]

void defined in section 571.10(c)(2)(i)(B). That section states that
seating surfaces can be separated by

[a] void whose cross section in each transverse vertical plane
within that measurement zone is a rectangle that is not less than
140 mm (5.5 inches) wide and not less than 140 mm (5.5 inches) deep.
The top edge of the cross section in any such plane is congruent
with the transverse horizontal line that intersects the lowest point
on the portion of the top profile of the seating surfaces that lie
within that plane.

Toyota interpreted this language to mean that the width measurement of
the void is taken between planes tangent to the seat edges on either
side of the void. This means that, where the seat edges adjacent to a
void are sloped downward toward the edge of the seat before turning
downward, the measurement between the seat edges would be made from the
outer edge of the seat rather than from where the seat surface begins
to slope downward.

This issue has been clarified in NHTSA's test procedure with
illustrated examples. We believe it is clear that the width of the void
area would be measured between the adjacent edges of the two adjacent
seating surfaces.
SAE also requested clarification regarding voids. It interpreted
section 571.10(c)(2)(i)(B) as applicable to seating rows that have
three or more seats. It reasoned that, when two or more seats are at
least 140 mm apart, section 571.10(c)(2)(iii) would apply, which
relates specifically to the seat cushion separation requirement for
outboard seats. SAE asked for clarification on how NHTSA would
interpret two adjacent seating surfaces that are not separated by 140
mm.
We do not agree with SAE's interpretation of the applicability of
section 571.10(c)(2)(i)(B). The applicability of section
571.10(c)(2)(i)(B) is not limited to rows with certain numbers of DSPs.
Rather, we anticipate that seating surfaces with ``voids'' would
generally be used by a manufacturer when otherwise there would be a
single seating surface that would require more DSPs than the
manufacturer intends. In contrast, the seat cushion separation in
section 571.10(c)(2)(iii) only applies to adjacent outboard seating
surfaces and does not limit the measurement zone. However, when
adjacent seating surfaces are not separated by 140 mm, the agency would
consider the seating surface between the two seats to be continuous. We
believe this issue has been addressed by specific examples in the
agency's test procedure.
6. H-Point Interruptions
SAE and Toyota requested clarification of section 571.10(c)(2)(ii)
as it applies to interrupting the H-point between two adjacent DSPs.
SAE expressed uncertainty as to whether the agency intended that the
interruption be at the location of the H-point or within a larger area
such as the 101 mm height or 76 mm fore-aft distance of the hip room
zone. We believe the regulatory text is clear that the actual location
of the H-point must be interrupted by interior trim. This was further
illustrated in the agency's test procedure, which was published after
we received SAE's request for clarification.
Toyota interpreted the measurement procedure as using the two
outboard seating position H-points to determine the ``X'' plane
location. We agree with Toyota that we would use the outboard DSPs to
determine the ``X'' plane location. However, we would also define the
H-point for any adjacent DSPs, even if they are not both outboard. To
clarify this, we are amending section 571.10(c)(2)(ii). Furthermore,
the H-point for adjacent DSPs may not necessarily fall on the same
plane, or even planes that pass through each other. In such a case,
interior trim can interrupt the ``X'' plane if it interrupts the ``X''
planes of both adjacent seating positions.
7. Folding, Removable, and Adjustable Seats
SAE requested that the agency clarify the applicability of section
571.10(c)(3), which specifies the manner in which folding, removable,
and adjustable seats are considered. This section provides that
folding, removable, and adjustable seats are measured in the
configuration that results in the single largest maximum seating
surface width.
First, SAE questioned what effect folding or removable seats have
on the seating surface width. That is, SAE noted that when such seats
are folded or removed, manufacturers do not intend for people to sit on
the back of the seat or in the area where the seat previously occupied.
The agency's intent, with respect to seats that are designed to fold or
be removed from the vehicle, such as seats in the second or third row
of minivans or sport utility vehicles, was that the seats be configured
such that the maximum possible seating surface width is measured for
that row when measuring seating surface width.
Second, SAE noted that seats that adjust backwards and forwards or
up and down do not cause the seat cushion itself to become wider. SAE
asked what range, including seat rotation, in the case of swiveling
seats, to take into account when measuring surface width. We recognize
that adjusting split bench seats or seats that can slide, depending on
how the seats are positioned, may result in changes to the total
seating surface width, and consequently may alter the calculated number
of DSPs. When adjusting seat positions that may result in changing the
number of DSPs, as with folding seats, we would determine the number of
DSPs by adjusting the seats in a manner that produces the maximum
number of DSPs. With respect to seats that adjust up and down, we note
that the height of the seat is not taken into account.
Third, SAE suggested that, if NHTSA intends to use section
571.10(c)(3) to determine whether a seat is adjacent, the language
would be better placed within the list specified under paragraph (c)(2)
of that section. We disagree. Paragraph (c)(2) states the general rule
that adjacent seating surfaces are considered to be a single,
continuous seating surface and then lists three exceptions. The
language in paragraph (c)(3) sets forth the configuration of certain
types of seats, but does not itself define when a seating surface is
(or is not) a continuous seating surface. Thus, we believe it is better
to separate the rules for considering folding and adjustable seats from
the exceptions stated in paragraph (c)(2).
8. Closely Adjoining Seat Belt Buckles
BMW petitioned the agency to allow two ``closely adjoining'' seat
belt buckles at the center of a seating row with a seating surface
width of less than 1,200 mm to be considered a seating surface with two
DSPs. Under section 571.10, as currently written, such a seating
surface, if at least 1050 mm, would have three DSPs. BMW reasoned that
such closely adjoining seat belt buckles, which are raised from the
surface of the seat, would serve as a visual cue and an impediment to
using the area in between as a seat.
We are denying BMW's request. Although it is possible that
adjoining seat belt buckles may provide a visual cue to some occupants
as to what is or is not a DSP, BMW provided no data to establish the
validity of this assumption. We are also not convinced that adjacent
seat belt buckles will provide an impediment to seating, as suggested
by BMW. Therefore, we do not believe that adopting BMW's suggested
language will solve the safety problem that the new DSP definition was
intended to resolve. In the October 2008 final rule, we noted that the
agency received a

[[Page 68755]]

complaint regarding the 2-door 2001 Ford Explorer, where consumers had
believed the rear seating was sufficient for three people, even though
there were only two DSPs and, consequently, two seat belt buckles.\9\
The seating surface width of the 2001 Ford Explorer is 1,270 mm, which
is only 70 mm more than the maximum seating surface width that BMW
proposes to allow. It is reasonable to believe that a situation similar
to the 2001 Ford Explorer could occur again if NHTSA adopts BMW's
suggested regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ See 73 FR 58889.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Calculating the Number of DSPs

The new procedure for calculating the number of DSPs uses one of
two calculations depending on the overall seating surface width. For
adjacent seats with a continuous seating surface with a width less than
1,400 mm, the seating surface width is divided by 350 mm and rounded
down to the nearest whole number to determine the number of DSPs. For
adjacent seats with a continuous seating surface width of 1,400 mm or
more, the measured surface is divided by 450 mm and rounded down to the
nearest whole number.
Volkswagen questioned the use of the 350 mm divisor because the
petitioner stated that the value is inconsistent with the prior DSP
definition and manufacturer design parameters. The prior definition of
designated seating position stated that seats with more than 127 cm
(1,270 mm) of hip room shall not have less than three DSPs. Volkswagen
reasoned that, applying this width to the new DSP definition, a divisor
of 423 mm (1,270 mm divided by 3) would be appropriate. Volkswagen also
stated that the design program used by many manufacturers provides 354
mm as the ergonomic design value for the 5th percentile female seating
hip room. Volkswagen believes that a divisor in the range of 360 to 400
mm should be established for seating surface widths less than 1,400 mm.
We are denying Volkswagen's petition to change the divisor for
determining the number of DSPs. In the October 2008 final rule, the
agency noted that a survey of the model year 2006 fleet supported the
use of a 350 mm divisor.\10\ The average width of a two-DSP seating
surface location in a vehicle dropped from 1,118 mm in model year 2001
sport-utility vehicles to 979 mm in comparable model year 2006
vehicles. We observed that the reduced seat size more clearly indicated
to occupants the capacity for which crash protection is provided. Based
upon this survey, we continue to believe that a 350 mm divisor is
consistent with existing design practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See 73 FR 58889.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Automakers petitioned the agency to correct an anomaly in
the calculation for the number of DSPs in a seating surface width
between 330 and 349 mm. Using the formula for seating surface widths
less than 1,400 mm specified in section 571.10(b)(1), the number of
DSPs for such a seating surface would be zero (330 mm divided by 350
mm, rounded down to the nearest whole number). Global Automakers
believes that the agency intended such seating surfaces to have one
DSP.
We agree with Global Automakers and are adopting their suggested
regulatory text correction. Although the definition of DSP in section
571.3 states that a DSP is a seating location with a seating surface
width at least 330 mm, the formula for calculating the number of DSPs
for a seating location with a seating surface width of at least 330 mm,
but less than 350 mm, would produce a value of zero. This was not the
agency's intended result. To correct this anomaly, we are amending
section 571.10(b)(1) to establish a minimum of one DSP.
We are also making a technical correction to the calculation of the
number of DSPs for seating locations with a seating surface width of
1,400 mm. This issue arose in interpretation requests received by the
agency from Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) and Girardin Minibus
(Girardin).\11\ Nissan and Girardin both raised the issue of seating
surfaces longer than 1,400 mm (1,700 mm and 1,778 mm, respectively) and
asked NHTSA to confirm that such a seating surface could have four
DSPs. Using the formula set forth in section 571.10(b)(2), the seating
surfaces would have three DSPs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ NHTSA's response to these interpretation requests can be
found at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/09-003169%20nissan.draft.dj.aug20.htm and http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/09-000724%20fortin.draft.dj.aug20.htm.
\12\ A seating surface width of at least 1,800 mm would be
required to have four DSPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response, the agency noted that the definition of ``designated
seating position'' was changed because of a concern that, in certain
situations, the number of people occupying a seating surface area
exceeded the number of DSPs for that area. Particularly, the agency was
concerned with seating surfaces that could accommodate three people,
but had only two DSPs. Nissan and Girardin put forward a scenario in
the opposite direction, a scenario in which a manufacturer wants to
designate more DSPs than the number required by the formula in section
571.10(b) and where the seating area is specifically designed for that
greater number of occupants. We stated that it was not our intent to
limit manufacturers from designating more DSPs than specified by the
formula in section 571.10(b)(2). Moreover, we noted that the data do
not demonstrate a problem with four people occupying a seat with three
DSPs.\13\ The agency chose the 450 mm divisor for such seats based on
the width typically used by seating manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ See 73 FR 58892.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In light of the issue raised by Nissan and Girardin, we are
clarifying that the calculation procedure in section 571.10(b)(2) for
seating surfaces of 1,400 mm or more is intended to be a minimum and
manufacturers can provide more DSPs than the number calculated by the
formula for these longer seating surfaces.

E. Consumer Information Label

Public Citizen petitioned the agency to require labeling of non-DSP
locations, such as voids separating adjacent DSPs, to reflect that the
location is not a seat and that sitting in the location while the
vehicle is in motion is dangerous. Public Citizen believes that the
label would provide a clear and unambiguous indication that such an
area is not a seat.
We are denying Public Citizen's request. Although we agree that the
labeling of non-DSP locations is consistent with the agency's intent of
providing visual cues that a non-DSP location should not be used as a
seat, we believe that this suggestion is outside of the scope of this
rulemaking procedure. We did not propose labels as a countermeasure in
the NPRM and did not seek public comment on the use of labels.
In the October 2008 final rule, we discussed an option in FMVSS No.
207, Seating Systems, that allows manufacturers of motor homes to place
a label on a seating location that is not to be used while the vehicle
is in motion, instead of identifying the seating location as a DSP and
installing a seat belt. The Recreational Vehicle Industry Association
had expressed its concern that the agency's NPRM had proposed
eliminating this option.
We believe that the labeling of non-DSP locations for passenger
vehicles is different because the FMVSS No. 207 option for labeling
applies to actual seats and chairs intended to be used as such by
occupants, albeit when the vehicle is not in motion. In the case of
light vehicles, we believe that the

[[Page 68756]]

locations in which one of the agency's specified impediment
countermeasures is used would be locations that would not comfortably
seat an occupant.

F. SAE J1100

SAE stated that it would like to include new definitions and
dimensions related to the October 2008 final rule in the newest version
of SAE J1100--Motor Vehicle Dimensions. In addition, SAE stated that it
would like SAE J1100 to be consistent with the agency's intentions
regarding the new DSP definition. SAE created draft definitions of
``seating surface'' and ``seating surface width'' and requested that
the agency express its agreement with these definitions. We believe our
response to the specific concerns and questions raised by SAE and other
petitioners and information in the agency's published test procedure
offer the guidance SAE seeks on the definitions of ``seating surface''
and ``seating surface width.'' In the event that SAE desires NHTSA's
interpretation regarding specific examples, SAE can request the
agency's interpretation.

G. Technical Correction for Side-Facing Seats

The revised DSP definition eliminated the exclusion of auxiliary
seat accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. In the
October 2008 final rule, we amended the test procedure in S5 of FMVSS
No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, to specify that, for side-
facing seats, the specified force would be applied in the direction
that the seat faces in a vertical plane perpendicular to the
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. However, we did not amend the
strength requirement itself to remove the exception for side-facing
seats. We were clear in both the NPRM and final rule that side-facing
seats would need to comply with the seat belt anchorage requirements of
FMVSS No. 210.\14\ We are including in this response a technical
correction to S4.2.1 and S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 210 to correct this
oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See 70 FR 36097-98; 73 FR 58892-93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and the DOT's regulatory
policies and procedures. This action was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agency has
considered the impact of this action under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979), and has determined that it is not ``significant''
under them.
This action completes the agency's response to petitions for
reconsideration of the October 2008 final rule amending the definition
of ``designated seating position.'' This final rule merely clarifies
existing regulatory text to be more clear and consistent with the
agency's intention. Today's action will not have any cost impacts for
vehicle manufacturers. This action will not have any safety impacts.

B. 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 the document, 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 http://docketsinfo.dot.gov/.

C. Other Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

In the October 2008 final rule and in the December 2009 final rule
providing a partial response to the petitions for reconsideration, the
agency discussed relevant requirements related to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13132 (Federalism),\15\ Civil Justice
Reform, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction
Act, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, and
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks). As today's final rule merely clarifies regulatory
text to reflect the agency's intent in the October 2008 final rule, it
will not have any effect on the agency's analyses in those areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ The issue of preemption was addressed in the preamble of
the December 2009 final rule. See 74 FR 68187-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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

0
2. In Sec. 571.10, revise paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), and
(c)(2)(ii) and add paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) and Figure 1 to
read as follows:

Sec. 571.10 Designation of seating positions.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) For seat locations with a seating surface width, as described
in paragraph (c), of less than 1400 mm (55.2 inches): N = The greater
of 1 or [seating surface width (in mm)/350] rounded down to the nearest
whole number;
(2) For seat locations with a seating surface width, as described
in paragraph (c), greater than or equal to 1400 mm (55.2 inches): N =
No less than [seating surface width (in mm)/350] rounded down to the
nearest whole number.
(c) * * *
(1) As used in this section, ``seating surface'' only includes the
seat cushion and soft trim and excludes unpadded trim components such
as a decorative seat shield, seat adjusters, or adjuster covers. As
used in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section, ``outboard''
and ``inboard'' are determined with respect to the measurement zone
established in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section. As used in this
section, ``seating surface width'' is the maximum horizontal width of a
seating surface determined by the following procedure:
(i) Establish a measurement zone bounded by two vertical planes
oriented perpendicular to the direction the seat is facing. One is
located 150 mm (5.9 inches) behind the front leading surface of the
seat and the other is located 250 mm (9.8 inches) behind the front
leading surface of the seat. A measurement location within this zone is
any vertical plane parallel to the planes establishing the boundary of
the zone.
(ii) For each measurement location within the zone, establish
vertical reference planes parallel to the direction the seat faces that
intersect the most outboard point on each side of the seating surface
at that measurement location. If outboard interior trim contacts the
top surface of the seat cushion, establish another vertical plane
parallel to the direction the seat faces that intersects the most
inboard point of contact between outboard interior trim and the top
surface of the seat cushion.

[[Page 68757]]

(iii) For measurement within the zone, measure horizontally between
and perpendicular to the most inboard vertical reference planes
established in (ii), as shown in Figure 1 (provided for illustration
purposes).
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) Interior trim interrupts the measurement of the nominal hip
room between adjacent seating surfaces, measured laterally along the
``X'' plane through the H-point. For purposes of this paragraph, the H-
point is located using the SAE three-dimensional H-point machine per
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Surface Vehicle Standard J826,
revised July 1995, ``Devices for Use in Defining and Measuring Vehicle
Seating Accommodation'' (incorporated by reference, see section 571.5)
with the legs and leg weights removed, or
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15NO13.003

0
3. Amend Sec. 571.210 by revising the introductory paragraphs to
S4.2.1 and S4.2.2 to read as follows:

Sec. 571.210 Standard No. 210; Seat belt assembly anchorages.

* * * * *
S4.2.1 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 5,000 pound force when tested in
accordance with S5.1 of this standard:
* * * * *
S4.2.2 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 3,000 pound force applied to the lap belt
portion of the seat belt assembly simultaneously with a 3,000 pound
force applied to the shoulder belt portion of the seat belt assembly,
when tested in accordance with S5.2 of this standard:
* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 5, 2013 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-27105 Filed 11-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P