Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assemblies, 53660-53662 [2011-21949]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53660-53662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21949]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 167 / Monday, August 29, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 53660]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0078]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assemblies

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by 
Mr. Michael R. Schramm, to amend the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard on seat belt assemblies, to include a requirement that seat 
belts be releasable without unbuckling. We are denying the petition 
because the petitioner did not demonstrate a safety need for such a 
requirement or show how such a requirement could be implemented without 
increasing inadvertent release of seat belts during normal vehicle 
operation and certain crash scenarios, resulting in increased risk to 
vehicle occupants.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For Non-Legal Issues: Ms. Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness 
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-4583, 
Facsimile: (202) 493-2739.
    For Legal Issues: Mr. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2992, Facsimile: (202) 
366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt 
Assemblies, includes a provision, S4.1(e) Release, that requires a seat 
belt assembly to provide a buckle that is readily accessible to the 
occupant to permit the easy and rapid removal of that occupant from the 
assembly. Furthermore, S4.3(d) Buckle release, requires the following:
    (1) The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall 
release when a force of not more than 133 N is applied.
    (2) A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release 
force shall have a minimum area of 452 mm\2\ with a minimum linear 
dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed 
for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the 
insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at 
least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length 
in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other 
design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers 
to actuate release.
    (3) The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall not 
release under a compressive force of 1,779 N applied as prescribed in 
paragraph S5.2(d)(3).\1\ The buckle shall be operable and shall meet 
the applicable requirement of paragraph S4.4 \2\ after the compressive 
force has been removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ S5.2(d)(3) applies the force on a test line that is 
coincident with the center line of the belt extended through the 
buckle or on any line that extends over the center of the release 
mechanism and intersects the extended centerline of the belt at an 
angle of 60 degrees. The load shall be applied using a curved 
cylindrical bar placed with its longitudinal center line along the 
test line and its center directly above the point or the buckle to 
which the load will be applied.
    \2\ S4.4 contains the requirements for assembly performance, 
including strength tests, elongation requirements, breaking 
strength, and fracture resistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petition

    On December 8, 2009, Michael R. Schramm (henceforth referred to as 
the petitioner) petitioned NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 209, to require 
seat belts to be releasable without unbuckling in response to a 5 pound 
(lb.) minimum seat belt assembly tension load when a vehicle is not 
moving faster than a threshold speed of 5 miles per hour (mph). 
Specifically, the petitioner recommended the incorporation of the 
following language in FMVSS No. 209, ``Said seat belt assembly shall 
release (without ``unlatching'' said buckle release mechanism) in 
response to a 5 lb. minimum load when and only when the vehicle in 
which said seat belt is installed is not moving at a speed of greater 
than 5 mph.'' The petitioner also included a copy of a November 23, 
2009 nonprovisional patent application for an ``Adaptive Seatbelt 
Apparatus'' for which the petitioner was listed as the inventor. The 
petitioner provided a cost estimate of $3.50 per seating position for 
such a feature.
    The petitioner cited several arguments in support of requiring seat 
belts to be releasable without unbuckling, including reducing the 
likelihood of death and injury of entrapped vehicle occupants. The 
petitioner cited the possibility of occupants being unable to extricate 
themselves from a vehicle due to a broken arm or hand. The petitioner 
also identified a case where a child almost got strangled by a seat 
belt. The petitioner further suggested there is a demand for such a 
feature as evidenced by the availability of seat belt cutting devices. 
He also suggested that seat belt use would increase, claiming a current 
lack of seat belt use by police officers who have the fear of being 
unable to immediately egress an engaged seat belt in emergency 
situations.

III. The Automotive Occupant Restraints Council's Comments

    On March 1, 2010, the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC) 
submitted a letter to NHTSA declining support of Mr. Schramm's 
petition. The AORC provided the following reasons for declining to 
support the petition: (1) A stationary vehicle that is struck would 
likely experience a seat belt release as soon as the belt is loaded; 
(2) merely moving around in the vehicle, while the vehicle is 
stationary, could cause the seat belt to release without intent/
awareness of the occupant, which, even if the occupant were aware of 
the situation, would likely be annoying; (3) it is not clear how the 
proposed tension load was determined as proper; (4) a child restrained 
in a seat could unlatch the seat belt during low speed maneuvers by 
pulling on it; and (5) in a slow rollover with no or low vehicle speed, 
a buckle could release as the vehicle lands on its roof. In summary, 
the AORC stated that these hazards far outweigh any potential benefit 
for the extremely rare cases cited by the petitioner.

[[Page 53661]]

IV. Analysis of Petition

    FMVSS No. 209 already requires the release mechanism to provide a 
rapid and easy removal from the seat belt assembly. The petitioner 
raised concern about extremely rare instances where crash deformation 
could cause the release mechanism to be damaged or become inaccessible. 
When such severe crashes occur, emergency medical services personnel 
use specialized equipment to extricate occupants. Also, should vehicle 
occupants be concerned about such a situation, there are aftermarket 
products, such as seat belt webbing cutters, that can be used. The 
petitioner also cited the possibility of vehicle occupants being unable 
to extricate themselves from their seat belt due to injuries (i.e., 
broken arm/hand) as a reason for requiring seat belts to be releasable 
without unbuckling. However, if the occupant was impaired in such a way 
that they were unable to unbuckle their seat belt and relied on the 
seat belt to release without unbuckling, such injuries may also limit 
their ability to exit through the vehicle door or window. The issue 
raised by the petition is whether there is a safety need to justify 
rulemaking to consider revising the existing standard in the manner 
recommended by the petitioner. The following section discusses 
technical concerns identified by the agency.

A. Technical Concerns

    The petitioner's main argument for seat belts that release without 
unbuckling is that they would reduce the likelihood of death and injury 
of entrapped vehicle occupants. However, it is unclear how the 
petitioner's request would be implemented to function without 
inadvertently releasing the seat belt during certain, more common, 
crash scenarios, e.g., a vehicle struck while slowly traveling through 
an intersection or a vehicle struck while stopped. The petitioner 
argued that it could be possible to require seat belts to not release 
as petitioned if the vehicle is traveling below the specified speed 
threshold and it detects an imminent oncoming crash. However, to 
accomplish this, vehicles would further require integration of 
electrical signals from existing front and side crash sensor 
information into the mechanical system that controls the petitioned 
buckle release technology, and presumably also require additional crash 
sensors for rollover and rear-end crash events for vehicles without 
such sensors. Crash imminent sensors, or sensors that detect an 
impending crash, may also be needed.
    It is also unclear how such a seat belt feature would perform 
during a slow rollover. NHTSA is concerned that releasing the seat belt 
in a slow rollover could increase the risk of occupant ejection and 
lead to rollover fatalities and serious injuries. Given that the 
petitioner did not go into the specifics \3\ of how the integration of 
electrical signals from vehicle crash sensors would work with the 
requested mechanical seat belt feature, we have concerns that the 
system would not act in time to keep the occupants restrained before 
the tension load threshold was reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The petitioner's patent simply stated that the vehicle would 
have the means to detect vehicle speed, oncoming vehicle speed, 
occupant presence, occupant weight, etc., and that it would 
communicate such information as needed to appropriately actuate the 
invention, but it did not give specifics on how it would communicate 
with the apparatus. It further assumed that all vehicles would have 
all the cited detection capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Such a feature would also be a potential risk during normal vehicle 
operation, e.g., children who cannot sit still or reach for items when 
the vehicle is traveling below the 5 mph threshold would likely be 
required to continuously re-buckle their seat belts during trips, which 
poses a potential disturbance to the driver and a safety risk to the 
child. Of greater concern would be that the parent would not be aware 
that the child has inadvertently released their buckle. In addition, 
for adult occupants the inadvertent seat belt release would present a 
considerable annoyance.
    The petitioner further suggested that by requiring such a feature, 
seat belt use would increase, especially among law enforcement and 
emergency response personnel that fear vehicle entrapment or being 
unable to immediately egress an engaged seat belt. While the petitioner 
provided a newspaper article that discussed police officers' concerns 
about time delays in tense situations if they have to undo their seat 
belt,\4\ the petitioner did not demonstrate that police officer seat 
belt use would increase if the requested rule were adopted. Similarly, 
the petitioner also included only anecdotal information regarding 
children being injured or strangled by seat belts, which would not 
necessarily be addressed by the requested rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Fruhwirth, Jesse, Standard Examiner Davis Bureau, November 
23, 2008, Page 1A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, no information was provided to show how the petitioner 
determined that 5 lbs. was a proper tension load. The petitioner merely 
suggested that NHTSA can determine a more appropriate load, or 
alternatively, it could be designed with a release load that adjusts 
according to the occupant's size or weight. However, the agency 
currently has no data or research findings that would allow for the 
determination of an appropriate load value. For the technical reasons 
previously discussed, the agency has no plans to devote resources 
towards this at this time.

B. Preliminary Analysis of Real World Crash Data

    Although the petitioner did not provide data showing a real world 
safety problem, the agency examined its crash data as part of 
considering the petition using the National Automotive Sampling System 
(NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) and Fatality Analysis 
Reporting System (FARS) data.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Refer to the technical analysis in the docket for this 
notice for further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using 1997-2008 NASS data, the agency identified cases that: (1) 
Involved at least one death to a belted occupant who was not completely 
ejected and for which the case summary included text that suggested 
submersion, immersion, drowning, or asphyxiation; and (2) involved at 
least one death to a belted occupant who was not completely ejected and 
suffered a burn injury. Based on our review of these 65 cases (29 
submersion cases and 36 burn cases), the agency could not conclude that 
any of the occupants would have benefitted from a rule requiring 
releasable without unbuckling seat belts. While 22 cases, a weighted 
estimate of 84 occupants (over the twelve-year period) were classified 
as having an ``unknown potential benefit'' from such a rule, many of 
those were unlikely to have benefitted because: Drugs and alcohol were 
involved, other damage to the vehicle may have impacted extrication 
(doors jammed shut), or the occupant may have been unconscious due to 
blunt force trauma and unable to extricate themselves.
    The 2006-2008 FARS files were also searched for unejected belted 
occupants for whom ``safety belts'' was listed as a vehicle 
contributing factor, and three cases were identified. Upon review of 
the three FARS case Police Accident Reports, none of the fatalities was 
a result of not being able to unbuckle the seat belt.
    We also considered the potential unintended consequences that could 
result from the petitioned change to FMVSS No. 209. As discussed in the 
previous section, there are several scenarios where releasable without 
unbuckling seat belts would not be desirable and may result in 
increased

[[Page 53662]]

risk to the vehicle occupants. For example, child passenger safety is 
an area of great importance to the agency. Children restrained using 
seat belts that can be inadvertently released presents a major safety 
concern, because children tend to move around more in their seats and 
could easily be unaware that the seat belt could release if loaded when 
the vehicle is stopped or travelling slowly. Similar risks could be 
present for children in child restraints. As a result of the 
inadvertent release of the seat belt by a child, the act of having to 
get the child restrained again during a trip would be a distraction for 
the driver and a large safety risk for the child. The child would be 
exposed to an even greater risk if no one is aware that the child is 
unrestrained and the child does not reattach their seat belt.
    In the previous section we also discussed how occupants of a 
vehicle that is stationary \6\ or travelling below the buckle release 
speed threshold that is involved in a collision would experience an 
inadvertent buckle release upon loading of the belt, and how rollovers 
are also a crash scenario where belts that are releasable without 
unbuckling would be undesirable from a safety perspective. These 
technical concerns and potential safety risks are insufficiently 
addressed by the petition. Further, the petitioner has not shown that 
his solution will not create additional problems, beyond those 
mentioned herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (DOT HS 811 
059) conducted between July 3, 2005 and December 31, 2007 found that 
an estimated 16 percent (350,000) of the vehicles were stopped in 
the traffic lane prior to the crash event (pg. 22, Table 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Analysis of Countermeasure Costs

    The petitioner cited a cost of $3.50 countermeasure cost per 
seating position to comply with the petitioner's recommendation. 
However, we are dubious of this minimal cost estimate, since the 
petition did not account for the software and hardware integration 
necessary to monitor the vehicle speed and determine whether it is 
below the threshold for release. For seat belts to remain buckled if 
the vehicle is traveling below the threshold for release and an 
oncoming crash is detected, the device would require software and 
integration of crash imminent detection for existing front and side 
crash sensors and further installation cost and integration of rollover 
and rear-end crash sensors. Such costs were not accounted for in the 
petition.

V. Conclusion

    FMVSS No. 209 already requires the release mechanism to provide a 
rapid and easy removal from the seat belt assembly. While the 
petitioner cites concerns about death and injury of entrapped vehicle 
occupants who are unable to unbuckle their seat belts, he does not 
demonstrate that this is an actual real-world safety problem of any 
significance. In rare instances where an extreme crash could cause the 
release mechanism to be damaged or become inaccessible, emergency 
medical services personnel also have their own specialized extrication 
equipment. Should vehicle occupants have a concern about such a 
situation, they can purchase aftermarket webbing cutters. The agency 
reviewed its data on fatal crashes and could not definitively conclude 
that any of the occupants would have benefitted from a rule requiring 
seat belts that are releasable without unbuckling. We also conclude 
that the potential for unintended consequences of inadvertent release 
of the seat belt during normal vehicle operation and certain crash 
scenarios, justify denying the petition.
    Therefore, NHTSA is denying the petition to amend FMVSS No. 209 to 
include a new requirement that seat belts be releasable without 
unbuckling. In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the 
agency's review of the petition.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: August 19, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-21949 Filed 8-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P