Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Christopher A. Hart
Federal Register
August 3, 1994
[Federal Register: August 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 91]
RIN 2127-AE48
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice amends Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, to require that Type 2 safety belts installed for
adjustable seats in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of
10,000 pounds or less either be integrated with the vehicle seat or be
equipped with a means of adjustability to improve the fit and increase
the comfort of the belt for a variety of different sized occupants.
NHTSA believes that some occupants who find their safety belts to be
uncomfortable react to their discomfort either by wearing their safety
belts incorrectly or by not wearing them at all. NHTSA believes that
improving safety belt fit will encourage the correct use of safety
belts and could increase the overall safety belt usage rate.
DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective
September 1, 1997.
Petition Date: Any petitions for reconsideration must be received
by NHTSA no later than September 2, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
and notice number of this notice and be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Clarke Harper, Frontal Crash
Protection Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NRM-12,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4916.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 2503(4) of the ``Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991'' requires the NHTSA to address the matter of
improved design for safety belts (Pub. L. 102-240). In response to this
statutory mandate, NHTSA issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) on May 29, 1992, proposing to add safety belt
``fit'' requirements to FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (57 FR
22687). The ANPRM listed three rulemaking options and posed ten
questions. The options included:
A. Take no regulatory action at this time.
B. Adopt detailed regulatory requirements to ensure proper belt fit.
C. Adopt a general requirement that safety belts adjust to fit
different sized occupants.
The ten questions asked for information on costs and benefits, and
for comments on the test procedure. At the same time, NHTSA continued
research, begun in March 1992, to investigate some of the issues
associated with belt fit.
After considering the responses to the ANPRM, and the results of
the research, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on
April 26, 1994 (59 FR 21740). A detailed discussion of the responses to
the ANPRM and of the research can be found in the NPRM. The NPRM
proposed a general requirement that Type 2 safety belts either be
integrated with the vehicle seat or be equipped with a means of
adjustability to improve the fit and increase the comfort of the belt
for a variety of different sized occupants (collectively referred to in
the remainder of this notice as the adjustability requirement). As
explained in the NPRM, NHTSA believes that some occupants who find
their safety belts to be uncomfortable react to their discomfort either
by wearing their safety belts incorrectly or by not wearing them at
all. NHTSA believes that improving safety belt fit will encourage the
correct use of safety belts and could increase the overall safety belt
usage rate. A more detailed discussion of the anticipated safety
benefits can be found in the ANPRM and the NPRM.
NHTSA received 30 comments in response to the NPRM. In general,
vehicle manufacturers only marginally concurred with the proposal. Many
vehicle manufacturers believe that there would be no benefit in
adopting the requirement because market forces are increasingly
inducing vehicle manufacturers to voluntarily provide improved
adjustability in their belt designs. The vehicle manufacturers further
believe that the requirement would stifle innovation in developing
other, and perhaps better, designs to improve belt fit. If the agency
were nevertheless to adopt an adjustability requirement, they wanted
NHTSA to exclude belts for rear seats and belts in convertibles, and in
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000
pounds, and to broaden the definitions of the type of adjustability
devices which may be used. Consumer advocates and some vehicle
manufacturers wanted the agency to amend the standard to include a
detailed performance requirement. Equipment and multistage vehicle
manufacturers wanted more lead time. None of the commenters disputed
that improving safety belt fit should increase safety belt usage;
however, the commenters believed that this benefit could not be
quantified. All of these comments were considered by the agency in
formulating this final rule, and the most significant comments are
addressed below.
General v. Detailed Performance Requirement
Eight commenters stated that a detailed performance requirement
would be better than the proposed general requirement. One commenter,
Transport Canada, stated that NHTSA should adopt a performance
requirement based on the Belt-fit Test Device (BTD), a device developed
in Canada. The Canadian government has proposed that the BTD be used to
assess belt fit in Canadian vehicles.
As discussed in the NPRM, the agency decided not to propose the
detailed test procedure discussed in the ANPRM because agency research
indicated that the procedure would not provide an adequate means of
identifying improper fit on the wide variety of sizes and shapes of
vehicle occupants. In addition, commenters on the ANPRM raised a number
of questions concerning the test procedure that the agency has been
unable to resolve. Since no commenter submitted any information to
remedy the inadequacies that the agency's research disclosed in the
ANPRM test procedure, NHTSA still lacks a detailed test procedure whose
adequacy has been sufficiently supported through agency testing.
NHTSA appreciates the information submitted by Transport Canada
regarding the BTD. However, the NPRM did not provide adequate notice to
permit the agency to adopt a rule based on the BTD. Further, NHTSA does
not have sufficient experience with the device to consider even
proposing such a rule at this time. However, the agency will continue
its coordination with Transport Canada on this issue to attempt to
harmonize regulatory requirements where possible.
Vehicle manufacturers stated that the proposed adjustability
requirement was a design-based standard, and therefore, design
restrictive. The agency disagrees. The language does not specify the
use of any particular designs to meet the adjustability requirement.
Instead, the requirement affords manufacturers broad flexibility in
designing means of compliance. Manufacturers may comply by providing
for the adjustability of the anchorage and have a broad choice
regarding the means for doing so. In addition, the requirement allows
them to choose other means of compliance. In lieu of anchorage
adjustability, manufacturers may either integrate the belts with the
seat or provide a means of automatically moving the webbing in relation
to the anchorage.
Accordingly, the agency has decided to adopt the adjustability
requirement, as proposed, for those seats that are required by this
final rule to have adjustable belts.
Vehicle manufacturers also asked the agency to clarify whether
certain devices would be allowed under the requirement, and, if not, to
expand the requirement to allow these devices. In response, the agency
has listed below the various devices mentioned in the comments and
indicated whether each of those devices is permissible.
Adjustable Upper Anchorage: An AUA is a device which provides a
means of adjusting the upper anchorage of the shoulder belt and which
has at least two distinct positions. This device would comply with the
adjustability requirement if switching from one adjustment position to
the other moves the device or webbing at least 5 centimeters, measured
linearly.
Floor-mounted Inboard Adjustable Anchorage: This is a device
similar to an AUA, except that it is mounted on the floor on the
inboard side of the seat. This device would comply if it has at least
two distinct adjustment positions, and if switching from one adjustment
position to the other moves the device or webbing at least 5
centimeters, measured linearly.
Integrated Safety Belt Assembly: This is a safety belt system
anchored completely to the seat structure. For a movable seat, the
anchorages must be located on a part of the seat above the seat
adjuster. This system would comply with the adjustability requirement.
``Semi-integrated'' Safety Belt Assembly: As described by Ford,
this is a safety belt system which has the upper anchorage and the
retractor for the upper torso portion of the Type 2 belt mounted to the
moving portion of the seat structure. Other commenters mentioned
similar ``semi-integrated'' designs, including: lower anchorages for
the upper torso belt mounted on the movable portion of the seat;
shoulder belt guides; and through-the-seat routing of the safety belt
webbing. These devices would be allowed if (1) the device is considered
part of the anchorage and meets the requirements of Standard No. 210,
Seat Belt Anchorages, and (2) if the movement of the device, measured
linearly, is at least 5 centimeters. The agency believes that all
``semi-integrated'' safety belt assemblies which meet the first
criterion would comply because the movement of the seat would move the
anchorage component sufficiently to meet the second criterion.
Sling-Mounted D-Rings: This is a sling-mounted upper shoulder belt
anchorage D-ring, used to relocate the D-ring closer to the occupant.
The sling usually rotates freely around the anchorage bolt to permit D-
ring movement. Sling-mounted D-rings designed in this manner do not
have two distinct adjustment positions and would not comply with the
adjustability requirement. NHTSA does not believe that a sling-mounted
D-ring which does not have distinct adjustment positions should be
allowed as the position of such a device could change due to vehicle
vibration or occupant movement, resulting in reduced comfort for the
occupant.
Ford's comment indicated that some sling-mounted D-rings are
``fixed and rigid'' and can ``be adjusted to a variety of different
positions that provide at least 5 centimeters of adjustment.'' Such a
device would comply with the adjustability requirement.
Intentional Set Retractor: As described by General Motors, this is
a safety belt retractor that would permit the introduction of slack in
the upper torso portion of the safety belt. Such a device could not be
used to comply with the requirement because the anchorage does not have
a movable component which has at least two adjustment positions
(S7.1.2), nor does the design move the webbing in relation to the
anchorage (S7.1.2.1). Spooling of webbing off the retractor increases
the amount of webbing in the belt system, but does not move the webbing
in relation to the anchorage as specified in S7.1.2.1. An example of
the type of design that would meet the requirements of S7.1.2.1 is the
Volvo design in which the shoulder belt webbing is fed through a slot
in the pillar at different angles and in different locations as
increasing amounts of webbing are spooled off the conical spool of the
retractor.
Adjustable Seat Height: Porsche described a system which adjusts
the seat height relative to a fixed D-ring to be used to comply with
the adjustability requirement. NHTSA is not amending the language to
allow the use of this system as a means of compliance. The agency does
not believe that, in practice, a seat with adjustable height would be
functionally equivalent to an anchorage with two or more adjustment
positions. NHTSA believes that occupants use seat adjustability
primarily as a means of reaching controls and increasing visibility out
of the vehicle. NHTSA has no evidence, nor did Porsche provide any
evidence that such a system alone would also be used by motorists to
provide a better safety belt fit. Moveover, even if motorists did use
it this way, the optimum seat adjustment for seat belt comfort could
conflict with optimum seat height for control access and visibility.
Rear Seats
Thirteen vehicle manufacturers and one association requested that
belts for rear seats be excluded from the adjustability requirement.
Some manufacturers stated that the agency's rationale for allowing
seats with integrated belts as an alternative means of compliance
(i.e., that integrated belts provide a good fit for a wide range of
occupants because the upper and lower anchorages maintain a constant
position relative to the seat) is equally applicable to belts for fixed
rear seats. Other manufacturers stated that there are very difficult
design problems involved in installing AUAs for rear seats. One
commenter, Ford Motor Company, requested an exclusion for belts for all
non-movable seats (both front and rear) and for seats which move fore-
and-aft only to allow access to other areas.
In the NPRM, NHTSA explained that it was aware of very few means
being used to provide adjustability in rear seats. NHTSA requested
comment on designs that could be used to comply with the proposed
requirements in the rear seats, the practicability of these designs,
and the costs of these designs. In response to these questions, many
comments indicated that there were greater design problems with
designing rear seats to comply with the adjustability requirement, and
that compliance was costlier for these seats with little benefit.
NHTSA agrees with the comments that the anchorages for belts
installed at a fixed seat will retain a constant position in relation
to the seat. Fixed seats, especially rear fixed seats, allow
manufacturers greater flexibility to design the location of the upper
anchorage to provide a good fit for a wide range of occupants because
the anchorage does not need to be located out of the way of the seat
movement. For those seats which have the anchorages on or very near the
seat (e.g., an upper anchorage on the shelf near the top of a rear seat
in a passenger car), the belt system should provide a range of fit
comparable to that provided by an adjustable seat with integrated
belts.
While NHTSA is aware that not all fixed seats have the upper
anchorage on or near the seat, NHTSA notes that requiring adjustability
of belts whose anchorages are not on or near fixed rear seats would not
solve the belt fit problems of many of the occupants of those seats.
The majority of fixed seats are rear seats, which are more commonly
occupied by children than adults. As noted in the NPRM, NHTSA's
research indicated a significantly lower percentage of both non-
adjustable and adjustable belts were within the comfort zone for the
six-year-old dummy than for the adult dummies. This suggests that this
rulemaking cannot solve the belt fit problems of children and that
other means, such as booster seats, must be used to provide comfortable
belt fit for children. Further, one commenter, a child seat
manufacturer, expressed concern that if belts were integrated with rear
seats, those belts could not be used to secure a child seat.
For these reasons, NHTSA has decided to exclude fixed seats from
the adjustability requirement. NHTSA also agrees with Ford Motor
Company that this exclusion should also apply to a seat which can be
adjusted to provide access to other areas, but is otherwise fixed.
NHTSA has therefore drafted this exclusion accordingly.
Convertibles
Three vehicle manufacturers asked the agency to exclude
convertibles from the adjustability requirement. These manufacturers
stated that the requirement was impracticable for these vehicles, since
convertibles do not have a B-pillar and therefore cannot accommodate
AUAs. These manufacturers further argued that, while the proposal
permits the use of other designs which could be used in convertibles to
comply with the adjustability requirement, electing these options would
greatly increase the cost of compliance.
Besides AUAs, other options for convertible seats include
integrated safety belt assemblies, and ``semi-integrated'' seat belt
assemblies. NHTSA estimates that providing an AUA costs $3.12 per
seating position, while integrated belts cost $38.15 each, and ``semi-
integrated'' belts cost $0.43 each.
After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has decided not to exclude
convertibles from the adjustability requirement. While NHTSA agrees
that manufacturers of convertibles may not be able to use AUAs, there
are other options, some of which are less expensive than AUAs.
Voluntarily Installed Type 2 Belts
Heavy truck manufacturers, one of their belt suppliers, and motor
home manufacturers expressed concern that the proposed regulatory
language was broad enough to include Type 2 belts that had been
voluntarily installed in vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000
pounds. Motor vehicle manufacturers were similarly concerned that the
regulatory language included Type 2 belts voluntarily installed at
seating positions in other types of vehicles (e.g., center seating
positions).
NHTSA intended the adjustability requirement to apply to seating
positions for which Standard No. 208 requires a Type 2 belt, but not to
seating positions for which Standard No. 208 provides a choice of
either a Type 1 or a Type 2 belt. Among the seating positions for which
the Standard provides this choice are all seating positions in vehicles
with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, and center seating positions in
vehicles with a GVWR of not more than 10,000 pounds. For all of these
seating positions, the choice of a Type 2 belt is voluntary. Under this
final rule, a Type 2 belt that is voluntarily installed in any vehicle
need not comply with the adjustability requirement.
Owner's Manual
Three commenters addressed the issue of requiring information on
the use of manual AUAs in the owner's manual. Two commenters supported
an owner's manual insert. One manufacturer stated that clarification
was needed on whether the information must be provided for belts
mounted on the seat frame so that they move with the seat. The agency
has clarified the informational requirement in S7.1.2 so that it more
clearly applies only if the belt system includes the movable component
required by that paragraph.
Effective Date
Every vehicle manufacturer requested additional leadtime to make
the design changes required by this rule. Some manufacturers stated
that an effective date of September 1, 1997 would better correspond to
the date on which air bags will be mandatory. Other requests ranged
from 2 years to a request for a four-year phase-in beginning at least 5
years after publication. The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association
(RVIA) and Bornemann Products Incorporated (Bornemann) requested an
additional two years leadtime after the effective date for vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages.
After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has decided to extend the
effective date to September 1, 1997. The agency believes it would be
more practicable to closely parallel the schedule for vehicle redesign
required for the implementation of manual belts and air bags.
Manufacturers will then be able to avoid redesign of the anchorage
systems for two safety belt-related rules. By this date, 100 percent of
passenger cars and 80 percent of light trucks must be equipped with
manual belts and air bags.
While NHTSA agrees that redesigning some vehicles will be
difficult, many commenters stated that all or most of their vehicles
will have an adjustment feature before this date. In addition, NHTSA
notes that many of the requests for longer extensions were based on
compliance difficulties for rear seats. Therefore, NHTSA has decided
that longer extensions are not necessary.
NHTSA has also decided not to allow additional leadtime for
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. There are questions about
the sufficiency of the agency's authority to grant relief to vehicles
based on their method of production instead of their type; however, the
agency need not address those questions in this final rule.
Bornemann and RVIA requested additional leadtime because there is
no assurance that engineering information or prototype vehicles would
be available in time for final stage manufacturers to comply with the
adjustability requirement by the same date as single stage
manufacturers. The commenters are concerned that, due to the lack of
leadtime and lack of early information from vehicle manufacturers, they
would be forced to install integrated seats to comply with the proposed
adjustability requirement.
The agency believes these concerns are unwarranted for numerous
reasons. First, as discussed above, the agency has provided an
additional year leadtime beyond that proposed. Because NHTSA
anticipates that many vehicles will comply before the effective date,
this should allow first stage manufacturers additional time to divulge
design information to final stage manufacturers. Second, the apparent
trend in the industry is to provide AUAs in incomplete vehicles. Since
the upper anchorage is not a component that is normally modified by
final stage manufacturers, there would be no additional requirement or
burden on the final stage manufacturers. Third, if neither of the
previous reasons provide relief, final stage manufacturers have options
other than integrated seats in designing vehicles to comply with the
adjustability requirement. For example, a ``semi-integrated'' safety
belt assembly in which the lower inboard anchorage is mounted on the
moving portion of the seat can be provided by the seat manufacturer and
is in the same magnitude of price as an AUA.
RVIA also stated that additional leadtime was necessary if the
agency did not exclude motor homes and rear seats. This request is
largely moot. As explained previously, the adjustability requirement
does not apply to voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belts. The
agency's decision to exclude voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belts
makes it unnecessary to adopt RVIA's request to exclude motor homes.
Many motor homes have a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. Thus, the Type
2 belts in those motor homes are all voluntarily installed belts. For
motor homes with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, the modifications
made to the front seating positions are not different than other van
conversions. Finally, the agency's decision to exclude fixed seats has
effectively excluded rear seats.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O.
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA estimates
that the annual economic impact of this final rule will be between $44
and $61 million. A Final Regulatory Evaluation has been prepared for
this final rule and is available in the docket for this notice.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. By not including the rear seat of vehicles, the agency
believes that the small businesses involved in altering vehicles, van
conversions, and multi-stage manufacturing will have little difficulty
meeting the standard. Most of the companies perform very few changes to
the front of the vehicle. Van converters may change the seats, but they
typically use the anchorage points provided by the original
manufacturer of the front seat. Those manufacturers that start with
incomplete vehicles will have to add and certify anchorages. However,
either seats with seat-frame mounted anchorages or adjustable upper
anchorages will be on the market and these manufacturers should not
have difficulty certifying compliance.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this final rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this final rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this rule
will not have significant federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
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 1.50.
2. Section 571.208 is amended by redesignating existing S7.1.2 and
S7.1.3, as S7.1.3 and S7.1.4, and adding new S7.1.2, S7.1.2.1, and
S7.1.2.2, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection
* * * * *
S7.1.2 Except as provided in S7.1.2.1 and S7.1.2.2, for each Type
2 seat belt assembly which is required by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR
571.208), the upper anchorage, or the lower anchorage nearest the
intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt, shall include a
movable component which has a minimum of two adjustment positions. The
distance between the geometric center of the movable component at the
two extreme adjustment positions shall be not less than five
centimeters, measured linearly. If the component required by this
paragraph must be manually moved between adjustment positions,
information shall be provided in the owner's manual to explain how to
adjust the seat belt and warn that misadjustment could reduce the
effectiveness of the safety belt in a crash.
S7.1.2.1 As an alternative to meeting the requirement of S7.1.2, a
Type 2 seat belt assembly shall provide a means of automatically moving
the webbing in relation to either the upper anchorage, or the lower
anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt.
The distance between the midpoint of the webbing at the contact point
of the webbing and the anchorage at the extreme adjustment positions
shall be not less than five centimeters, measured linearly.
S7.1.2.2 The requirements of S7.1.2 do not apply the anchorages of
a Type 2 seat belt assembly installed:
(a) at a seat which is adjustable fore and aft while the vehicle is
in motion and whose seat frame above the fore-and-aft adjuster is part
of each of the assembly's seat belt anchorages, as defined in S3 of
Standard No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210).
(b) at a seat that is not adjustable fore and aft while the vehicle
is in motion.
* * * * *
Issued on July 28, 1994.
Christopher A. Hart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-18812 Filed 8-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P