Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 95731-95733 [2016-31405]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices
under an obligation to provide
information to the agency. It also
includes entities that voluntarily submit
information to the agency. Such entities
would include manufacturers of motor
vehicles and of motor vehicle
equipment. Importers are considered to
be manufacturers. It may also include
other entities that are involved with
motor vehicles or motor vehicle
equipment but are not manufacturers.
Estimate of the Total Annual
Reporting and Recordkeeping Burdens
Resulting from the Collection of
Information—4000 hours.
The agency receives requests for
confidential treatment that vary in size
from requests that ask the agency to
withhold as little as a portion of one
page to multiple boxes of documents.
NHTSA estimates that it will take on
average approximately eight (8) hours
for an entity to prepare a submission
requesting confidential treatment. This
estimate will vary based on the size of
the submission, with smaller and
voluntary submissions taking
considerably less time to prepare. The
agency based this estimate on the
volume of requests received over the
past three years.
NHTSA estimates that it will receive
approximately 500 requests for
confidential treatment annually. This
figure is based on the average number of
requests received over the past three
years. We selected this period because
it provides an estimate based on
incoming requests for the most recent
three years. The agency estimates that
the total burden for this information
collection will be approximately 4000
hours, which is based on the number of
requests (500) multiplied by the
estimated number of hours to prepare
each submission (8 hours).
Since nothing in the rule requires
those persons who request confidential
treatment pursuant to part 512 to keep
copies of any records or requests
submitted to us, recordkeeping costs
imposed would be zero hours and zero
costs.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Issued on December 21, 2016 in
Washington, DC, under authority delegated
in 49 CFR part 1.95.
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016–31333 Filed 12–27–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0116; Notice 1]
Ford Motor Company, Receipt of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
AGENCY:
Ford Motor Company (Ford),
has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2015–2017 Ford F–150 and Ford
F-Super Duty pickup trucks do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 202a,
Head Restraints. Ford filed a
noncompliance information report
dated October 18, 2016. Ford also
petitioned NHTSA on November 17,
2016, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
DATES: The closing date for comments
on the petition is January 27, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written data, views,
and arguments on this petition.
Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited in the title of this
notice and submitted by any of the
following methods:
• Mail: Send comments by mail
addressed to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver comments
by hand to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
• Electronically: Submit comments
electronically by logging onto the
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Comments may also be faxed to
(202) 493–2251.
Comments must be written in the
English language, and be no greater than
15 pages in length, although there is no
limit to the length of necessary
attachments to the comments. If
comments are submitted in hard copy
form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
95731
confirmation that comments you have
submitted by mail were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
All comments and supporting
materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated
above will be filed in the docket and
will be considered. All comments and
supporting materials received after the
closing date will also be filed and will
be considered to the fullest extent
possible.
When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will also
be published in the Federal Register
pursuant to the authority indicated at
the end of this notice.
All comments, background
documentation, and supporting
materials submitted to the docket may
be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may
also be viewed on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by following the
online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number for this
petition is shown in the heading of this
notice.
DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477–78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Ford Motor Company (Ford), has
determined that certain model year
(MY) 2015–2017 Ford F–150 and Ford
F-Super Duty pickup trucks do not fully
comply with paragraph S4.2.2 of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 202a, Head Restraints.
Ford filed a noncompliance information
report dated October 18, 2016, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. Ford also petitioned NHTSA on
November 17, 2016, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49
CFR part 556, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that
this noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of Ford’s
petition is published under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 and does not represent
any agency decision or other exercise of
judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
II. Vehicles Involved
Approximately 274,321 MY 2015–
2017 Ford F–150 and MY 2017 Ford
E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM
28DEN1
95732
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices
F-Super Duty pickup trucks
manufactured between March 12, 2014
and September 28, 2016, are potentially
involved. The affected vehicles are
those equipped with a 4-way adjustable
driver and front passenger seat head
restraint and a front row center seating
position (referred to as a ‘‘40/20/40 front
seat’’).
III. Noncompliance
Ford explains that the noncompliance
is that the driver and front passenger
seat head restraints in the subject
vehicles do not meet the minimum
width requirements of paragraph S4.2.2
of FMVSS No. 202a. The head restraints
have, on average, a width of 239 mm,
which is below the 254 mm minimum
width required by the standard.
IV. Rule Text
Paragraph S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 202a
states:
S4.2.2 Width. When measured in
accordance with S5.2.2 of this section, 65 ±
3 mm below the top of the head restraint, the
lateral width of a head restraint must be not
less than 170 mm, except the lateral width
of the head restraint for front outboard
designated seating positions in a vehicle with
a front center designated seating position,
must be no less than 254mm . . .
V. Summary of Ford’s Petition
Ford described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that
the noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Ford
submitted the following reasoning:
1. Identical bucket seat and head
restraint design provides the intended
level of protection: The outboard front
bucket seats (cushion, back, head
restraint) are identical for trucks built
with or without a front row center
designated seating position (dsp). In
fact, it is possible to remove the seats
from a subject truck and swap them
with the seats from a truck built without
a front center dsp. The center area
between the two outboard front bucket
seats can be configured with a fold
down storage console/dsp, center
storage console, or nothing. The
outboard bucket seats are the same,
regardless of the selected center option.
a. Review of preamble discussions
(FMVSS No. 202a rulemaking) finds that
the main reason for retaining the
254 mm width requirement was concern
that ‘‘occupants seated on bench seats
are freer than occupants of single seats
to position themselves so that they are
not directly in front of the head
restraint, and a bench head restraint
needs to be wider to assure that the
head restraint will be behind the
occupant in event of a crash.’’ (72 FR
25514)
b. Review of preamble discussions
finds that the main reason for retaining
the 170 mm width requirement, and not
increasing to 254 mm, for ‘‘bucket seats’’
is ‘‘. . . front outboard non-bench seats
have a defined contour that, in addition
to belt use, better prescribe occupant
seating position relative to the head
restraint. Therefore, the front non-bench
head restraints can be narrower than the
front bench seat head restraints.’’ (69 FR
74848)
c. Conclusion: The seat utilized in the
subject vehicles are not ‘‘bench seats’’ in
the traditional sense of providing a
single seating surface that spans the
width of the vehicle. All of the
characteristics citied by the Agency in
supporting the basis for narrower head
restraints for bucket seat vehicles are
present in the outboard seats of the
subject trucks because the outboard
bucket seats are identical regardless of
how the center area between the seats is
configured. The ability for an occupant
to position or mis-position themselves
in the outboard seat is the same for
trucks with or without the center dsp
because the seat contours and seat belt
anchorage locations are the same. The
seats are identical and interchangeable
but the head restraint width
requirement is different. Ford is not
advocating that a narrower head
restraint width requirement should
apply. Rather, Ford believes that the
safety risk the agency sought to address
by retaining a wider width requirement
for seats with a front center dsp is
simply not present in the subject bucket
seats because of its contoured design.
Regardless how the front center area
between the seats is configured, Ford
believes that the subject head restraints
in the outboard front bucket seats
provide the intended level of protection.
2. Seating reference point
measurements demonstrate head
restraints provide required width
protection and intended level of safety:
a. Ford evaluated head restraint width
protection using seating reference point
measurements (SgRP). In promulgating
FMVSS No. 202a, the Agency proposed
to ‘‘maintain the existing width
requirements.’’ In responding to
comments to harmonize the
requirements with ECE 17, the agency
stated that, ‘‘The 254 mm width
requirement for these head restraints on
bench seats has been in effect since
January 1, 1969.’’ (69 FR 74848). Ford
believes that this clearly shows that the
agency intended to retain the width
requirement as-is in the upgraded
standard.
b. In retaining the width
requirements, the measurement
procedure was revised from ‘‘when
measured either 64 mm below the top
of the head restraint or 635 mm above
the seating reference point’’ to ‘‘when
measured 65 ± 3 mm below the top of
the head restraint.’’
c. Ford believes that the position of
the occupant’s head is determined by
their seating position, not by the head
restraint. In this case, Ford believes that
measuring the head restraint width from
the SgRP demonstrates that the subject
head restraints provide the intended
level of safety. Measuring from the top
of the head restraint actually varies the
location of the width requirement based
on the head restraint design, and is not
necessarily based on the position of the
occupant’s head. Below is a table
providing data illustrating how the
height of a head restraint affects the
location at which the width requirement
applies, further it shows how this is
different under the original FMVSS No.
202 standard.
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF HEAD RESTRAINT WITH MEASUREMENT LOCATION
Height at width measurement—
FMVSS No. 202
(635 mm above SgRP)
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Top of head restraint
(mm)
700
750
800
850
(FMVSS No. 202) .......................................................................................
(FMVSS No. 202a) .....................................................................................
(FMVSS No. 202a) .....................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 4703
Height at width measurement—
FMVSS No. 202a
(65 mm below top)
635
635
635
635
635
685
735
785
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM
28DEN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices
d. The height of the adjustable head
restraint in the subject trucks ranges
from a minimum of 802 mm up to 851
mm, exceeding the height requirements
of FMVSS No. 202a by 50 mm.
e. While the agency argued that the
existing requirements should not be
changed because they meet the need for
motor vehicle safety, in the preambles
for the FMVSS No. 202a upgrade, no
rationale was provided for excluding the
option of measuring up from the SgRP
or how this option did not meet the
need for motor vehicle safety.
f. Conclusion: In the subject trucks,
the outboard dsp head restraint width
exceeds the requirement when the
width is measured 635 mm above the
SgRP. This method is based on the
occupant seated height and is consistent
for all seats and head restraints, and
demonstrates that the subject head
restraints provide occupants with the
intended level of safety.
3. Exemplar measurements
demonstrate that the subject head
restraints provide required width
protection and intended level of safety
for all occupants:
a. Ford evaluated head restraint width
protection for occupants using a
SAEJ826 package manikin. The
measured width of the head restraint at
the initial point of contact between the
head restraint and the head of the
manikin is 257 mm. The height at this
location is 636 mm above the seating
reference point (SgRP).
b. Based on a survey of 15 trucks the
highest point on the head restraint that
meets the 254 mm width requirement
ranged from 674 mm to 721 mm above
the SgRP with the head restraint in the
full down position. Ford provides the
required width across a wide section of
the head restraint. Adjusting the head
restraint up (up to 50 mm of vertical
adjustment is available) further
increases the range at which Ford
provides the required width. This range
of coverage includes occupants as tall
and taller than the 95th percentile
American male.
c. Conclusion: The subject trucks
provide the required width and
intended level of safety for all occupants
including, and taller than, the 95th
percentile American male.
4. Vehicle performance testing
demonstrates head restraints provide
intended level of safety:
a. Another alternative method for
evaluating seat performance is testing.
The Ford F–150 meets or exceeds all
other FMVSS No. 202a requirements
and was rated ‘‘Good’’ by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety based on
dynamic whiplash testing. Based on
testing, Ford believes that its head
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
restraints are indeed providing the
intended level of safety to occupants.
Ford stated that it has made changes
in production to increase the width of
the head restraints.
Ford concluded by expressing the
belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of
the noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any
decision on this petition only applies to
the subject vehicles that Ford no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However,
any decision on this petition does not
relieve vehicle distributors and dealers
of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their
control after Ford notified them that the
subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–31405 Filed 12–27–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network; Bank Secrecy Act Advisory
Group; Solicitation of Application for
Membership
Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network (‘‘FinCEN’’), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
nominations.
AGENCY:
FinCEN is inviting
nominations from the public for
membership on the Bank Secrecy Act
Advisory Group. New members will be
selected for three-year membership
terms.
DATES: Nominations must be received
by January 27, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Nominations must be
emailed to BSAAG@fincen.gov.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00179
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
95733
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
FinCEN Resource Center at 800–767–
2825.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money
Laundering Act of 1992 required the
Secretary of the Treasury to establish a
Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group
(BSAAG) consisting of representatives
from federal regulatory and law
enforcement agencies, financial
institutions, and trade groups with
members subject to the requirements of
the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 CFR 1000—
1099 et seq. or Section 6050I of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The
BSAAG is the means by which the
Treasury receives advice on the
operations of the Bank Secrecy Act. As
chair of the BSAAG, the Director of
FinCEN is responsible for ensuring that
relevant issues are placed before the
BSAAG for review, analysis, and
discussion.
FinCEN invites BSAAG membership
nominations for financial institutions,
trade groups, and non-federal regulatory
and law enforcement agencies. New
members will be selected to serve a
three-year term and must designate one
individual to represent that member at
plenary meetings. The designated
representative should be knowledgeable
about Bank Secrecy Act requirements
and must be able and willing to make
the necessary time commitment to
participate on committees throughout
the year by phone and attend biannual
plenary meetings held in Washington,
DC, in May and October.
It is important to provide complete
answers to the following items, as
nominations will be evaluated on the
information provided through this
process. There is no formal application;
interested organizations may submit
their nominations via email or email
attachment. Nominations should consist
of:
• Name of the organization requesting
membership
• Point of contact, title, address,
email address and phone number
• Description of the financial
institution or trade group and its
involvement with the Bank Secrecy Act,
31 CFR 1000–1099 et seq.
• Reasons why the organization’s
participation on the BSAAG will bring
value to the group
Organizations may nominate
themselves, but nominations for
individuals who are not representing an
organization will not be considered.
Members will not be remunerated for
their time, services, or travel. In making
the selections, FinCEN will seek to
complement current BSAAG members
E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM
28DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95731-95733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31405]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0116; Notice 1]
Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Ford Motor Company (Ford), has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2015-2017 Ford F-150 and Ford F-Super Duty pickup trucks do
not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
202a, Head Restraints. Ford filed a noncompliance information report
dated October 18, 2016. Ford also petitioned NHTSA on November 17,
2016, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is January 27,
2017.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Ford Motor Company (Ford), has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2015-2017 Ford F-150 and Ford F-Super Duty pickup trucks do not
fully comply with paragraph S4.2.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 202a, Head Restraints. Ford filed a noncompliance
information report dated October 18, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Ford also
petitioned NHTSA on November 17, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d)
and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of Ford's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
II. Vehicles Involved
Approximately 274,321 MY 2015-2017 Ford F-150 and MY 2017 Ford
[[Page 95732]]
F-Super Duty pickup trucks manufactured between March 12, 2014 and
September 28, 2016, are potentially involved. The affected vehicles are
those equipped with a 4-way adjustable driver and front passenger seat
head restraint and a front row center seating position (referred to as
a ``40/20/40 front seat'').
III. Noncompliance
Ford explains that the noncompliance is that the driver and front
passenger seat head restraints in the subject vehicles do not meet the
minimum width requirements of paragraph S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 202a. The
head restraints have, on average, a width of 239 mm, which is below the
254 mm minimum width required by the standard.
IV. Rule Text
Paragraph S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 202a states:
S4.2.2 Width. When measured in accordance with S5.2.2 of this
section, 65 3 mm below the top of the head restraint,
the lateral width of a head restraint must be not less than 170 mm,
except the lateral width of the head restraint for front outboard
designated seating positions in a vehicle with a front center
designated seating position, must be no less than 254mm . . .
V. Summary of Ford's Petition
Ford described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that
the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety.
In support of its petition, Ford submitted the following reasoning:
1. Identical bucket seat and head restraint design provides the
intended level of protection: The outboard front bucket seats (cushion,
back, head restraint) are identical for trucks built with or without a
front row center designated seating position (dsp). In fact, it is
possible to remove the seats from a subject truck and swap them with
the seats from a truck built without a front center dsp. The center
area between the two outboard front bucket seats can be configured with
a fold down storage console/dsp, center storage console, or nothing.
The outboard bucket seats are the same, regardless of the selected
center option.
a. Review of preamble discussions (FMVSS No. 202a rulemaking) finds
that the main reason for retaining the 254 mm width requirement was
concern that ``occupants seated on bench seats are freer than occupants
of single seats to position themselves so that they are not directly in
front of the head restraint, and a bench head restraint needs to be
wider to assure that the head restraint will be behind the occupant in
event of a crash.'' (72 FR 25514)
b. Review of preamble discussions finds that the main reason for
retaining the 170 mm width requirement, and not increasing to 254 mm,
for ``bucket seats'' is ``. . . front outboard non-bench seats have a
defined contour that, in addition to belt use, better prescribe
occupant seating position relative to the head restraint. Therefore,
the front non-bench head restraints can be narrower than the front
bench seat head restraints.'' (69 FR 74848)
c. Conclusion: The seat utilized in the subject vehicles are not
``bench seats'' in the traditional sense of providing a single seating
surface that spans the width of the vehicle. All of the characteristics
citied by the Agency in supporting the basis for narrower head
restraints for bucket seat vehicles are present in the outboard seats
of the subject trucks because the outboard bucket seats are identical
regardless of how the center area between the seats is configured. The
ability for an occupant to position or mis-position themselves in the
outboard seat is the same for trucks with or without the center dsp
because the seat contours and seat belt anchorage locations are the
same. The seats are identical and interchangeable but the head
restraint width requirement is different. Ford is not advocating that a
narrower head restraint width requirement should apply. Rather, Ford
believes that the safety risk the agency sought to address by retaining
a wider width requirement for seats with a front center dsp is simply
not present in the subject bucket seats because of its contoured
design. Regardless how the front center area between the seats is
configured, Ford believes that the subject head restraints in the
outboard front bucket seats provide the intended level of protection.
2. Seating reference point measurements demonstrate head restraints
provide required width protection and intended level of safety:
a. Ford evaluated head restraint width protection using seating
reference point measurements (SgRP). In promulgating FMVSS No. 202a,
the Agency proposed to ``maintain the existing width requirements.'' In
responding to comments to harmonize the requirements with ECE 17, the
agency stated that, ``The 254 mm width requirement for these head
restraints on bench seats has been in effect since January 1, 1969.''
(69 FR 74848). Ford believes that this clearly shows that the agency
intended to retain the width requirement as-is in the upgraded
standard.
b. In retaining the width requirements, the measurement procedure
was revised from ``when measured either 64 mm below the top of the head
restraint or 635 mm above the seating reference point'' to ``when
measured 65 3 mm below the top of the head restraint.''
c. Ford believes that the position of the occupant's head is
determined by their seating position, not by the head restraint. In
this case, Ford believes that measuring the head restraint width from
the SgRP demonstrates that the subject head restraints provide the
intended level of safety. Measuring from the top of the head restraint
actually varies the location of the width requirement based on the head
restraint design, and is not necessarily based on the position of the
occupant's head. Below is a table providing data illustrating how the
height of a head restraint affects the location at which the width
requirement applies, further it shows how this is different under the
original FMVSS No. 202 standard.
Table 1--Comparison of Head Restraint With Measurement Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Height at width Height at width
measurement--FMVSS measurement--FMVSS
Top of head restraint (mm) No. 202 (635 mm No. 202a (65 mm
above SgRP) below top)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
700 (FMVSS No. 202)........... 635 635
750 (FMVSS No. 202a).......... 635 685
800 (FMVSS No. 202a).......... 635 735
850........................... 635 785
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 95733]]
d. The height of the adjustable head restraint in the subject
trucks ranges from a minimum of 802 mm up to 851 mm, exceeding the
height requirements of FMVSS No. 202a by 50 mm.
e. While the agency argued that the existing requirements should
not be changed because they meet the need for motor vehicle safety, in
the preambles for the FMVSS No. 202a upgrade, no rationale was provided
for excluding the option of measuring up from the SgRP or how this
option did not meet the need for motor vehicle safety.
f. Conclusion: In the subject trucks, the outboard dsp head
restraint width exceeds the requirement when the width is measured 635
mm above the SgRP. This method is based on the occupant seated height
and is consistent for all seats and head restraints, and demonstrates
that the subject head restraints provide occupants with the intended
level of safety.
3. Exemplar measurements demonstrate that the subject head
restraints provide required width protection and intended level of
safety for all occupants:
a. Ford evaluated head restraint width protection for occupants
using a SAEJ826 package manikin. The measured width of the head
restraint at the initial point of contact between the head restraint
and the head of the manikin is 257 mm. The height at this location is
636 mm above the seating reference point (SgRP).
b. Based on a survey of 15 trucks the highest point on the head
restraint that meets the 254 mm width requirement ranged from 674 mm to
721 mm above the SgRP with the head restraint in the full down
position. Ford provides the required width across a wide section of the
head restraint. Adjusting the head restraint up (up to 50 mm of
vertical adjustment is available) further increases the range at which
Ford provides the required width. This range of coverage includes
occupants as tall and taller than the 95th percentile American male.
c. Conclusion: The subject trucks provide the required width and
intended level of safety for all occupants including, and taller than,
the 95th percentile American male.
4. Vehicle performance testing demonstrates head restraints provide
intended level of safety:
a. Another alternative method for evaluating seat performance is
testing. The Ford F-150 meets or exceeds all other FMVSS No. 202a
requirements and was rated ``Good'' by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety based on dynamic whiplash testing. Based on testing,
Ford believes that its head restraints are indeed providing the
intended level of safety to occupants.
Ford stated that it has made changes in production to increase the
width of the head restraints.
Ford concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Ford no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Ford
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-31405 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P