|
|---|
|
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Barry Felrice Date: 13 June 1995 Subject: American Government  • Public Service Vehicles • Safety
Topic: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards |
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31132-31135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14401]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 95]
RIN 2127-AF66
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the agency's safety belt
requirements for forward-facing rear outboard seating positions of
police cars and other law enforcement vehicles. This action was
initiated in response to a petition for rulemaking submitted by Laguna
Manufacturing, Inc. Believing that the considerations governing the
design of safety belts for use by prisoners are different from those
applicable to safety belts for the general public, Laguna requested
that Standard No. 208 be amended to provide greater flexibility to
design safety belt systems that are better suited for restraining
prisoners being transported in the rear seats of law enforcement
vehicles.
DATES: Comment Date: Comments must be received by August 14, 1995.
Effective Date: If adopted, the proposed amendments would become
effective 30 days following publication of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linda McCray, Frontal Crash
Protection Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NPS-12,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection,
requires an integral Type 2 (lap and shoulder) safety belt assembly at
all forward-facing rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars
and other light vehicles. The standard also requires that each of these
safety belt assemblies be equipped with an emergency locking retractor.
The emergency locking retractor allows the belt webbing to unwind from
the spool when the belt user leans forward or to the side and rewinds
it when the user leans back against the seat. However, in the event of
a sudden stop or crash, the retractor locks up. This type of retractor
serves several purposes. By providing a comfortable belt fit and
allowing the belt user some freedom of movement, this type of retractor
makes it more likely that the typical vehicle occupant will use safety
belts. It also reduces the likelihood of excessive slack in safety
belts during use.
Believing that the considerations governing the design of safety
belts for use by prisoners being transported in police cars and other
law enforcement vehicles are different from those applicable to safety
belts for the general public, Laguna Manufacturing, Inc. submitted to
NHTSA a petition for rulemaking requesting that Standard No. 208 be
amended. Laguna sought an amendment that would provide greater
flexibility to design safety belt systems that are better suited for
restraining prisoners being transported in forward-facing rear outboard
seating positions in these vehicles. That company argued that the
requirement for an emergency locking retractor is inappropriate for
safety belt systems used by prisoners, since it allows too much slack
in non-emergency situations. This is because these retractors spool out
webbing and thus allow safety-belted prisoners too much range of
movement. Laguna stated that some police departments refrain altogether
from safety belting a prisoner and instead use a ``hog tie restraint''
and lay the prisoner down on the rear seat. In these situations, the
prisoner does not have any safety belt protection.
More specifically, Laguna requested that Standard No. 208 be
amended to permit the use of a manual tightening system instead of an
emergency locking retractor for safety belts intended for use by
prisoners. That company stated that [[Page 31133]] such a system would
afford the occupant all of the crash protection provided by the
standard and only exclude a feature intended to provide comfort and
convenience. Laguna argued that a prisoner who's handcuffed behind his/
her back would be unable to fasten the safety belts. Therefore, in such
a situation, a feature intended to provide comfort and convenience
would not make the occupant more likely to fasten the safety belt.
In support of its petition, Laguna provided information about a
special rear seat and safety belt system it has designed for police
cars. The design includes two outboard integral lap and shoulder belt
systems which use the same anchor point locations as conventional belt
systems in the forward-facing rear outboard seats in current cars.
However, there are two significant differences between the Laguna
belt system and a conventional safety belt system. First, the Laguna
system includes a manual belt tightening system instead of an emergency
locking retractor. Second, the Laguna system uses two buckles instead
of one and buckles in a different location than a conventional safety
belt system. The ends of the lap and shoulder belt portions of the
conventional safety belt system are permanently attached to the
outboard anchorages. The end of the lap belt portion is attached to the
lower anchorage and the end of shoulder belt portion is attached to the
upper anchorage. The buckle is mounted at the anchorage near the center
of the vehicle. The permanent attachment points and buckling points are
reversed for the Laguna system. The middle of the Laguna belt system is
permanently anchored at the anchorage near the center of the vehicle.
The end of the lap belt portion buckles at the lower anchorage and the
end of the shoulder belt buckles at the upper anchorage.
Laguna stated that its design eliminates the need for police
officers to lean over a prisoner in the rear seat of the police car.
This is partly attributable to the fact that both the lap belt and
shoulder belt portions buckle at the outboard anchorages. Therefore, an
officer need not lean over a prisoner to buckle the belt at an
anchorage in the center of the vehicle, as would be the case with
conventional belt systems. In addition, a large magnet is mounted on a
floating sleeve that slides along the lap and shoulder belt portions.
When the belts are not in use, the magnet attaches the belts to the
metal cage partition that typically separates the front and rear
portions of police cars. When the magnet is released from the metal
cage partition, the sleeve falls to the center mounting position which
allows the belt to properly separate into the lap/shoulder portions.
When a prisoner is placed in the rear seat, the officer can use his or
her forearm to remove the magnetically attached belts from the metal
cage partition and buckle the belts around the prisoner, without at any
time leaning over the prisoner.
After considering the issues raised by Laguna, NHTSA has
tentatively concluded that Standard No. 208 should be amended to
provide more flexibility with respect to the design and performance of
safety belts installed at forward-facing rear outboard seating
positions of law enforcement vehicles. The agency recognizes that the
use of vehicles by law enforcement officers to transport prisoners
creates special problems.
As requested by Laguna, NHTSA is proposing to permit the use of a
manual tightening system instead of an emergency locking retractor in
law enforcement vehicles. The agency believes that there is the need to
limit the movement of a safety belted prisoner. Further, as noted by
the petitioner, while the comfort and convenience benefits of an
emergency locking retractor normally have the effect of helping to
induce belt use, they do not have that effect on handcuffed or
otherwise bound prisoners who are being involuntarily transported in
law enforcement vehicles. The agency notes that a safety belt system
incorporating a manual tightening system may result in an increase in
the number of prisoners who are safety belted while being transported.
NHTSA is also proposing to exclude safety belts installed at
forward-facing rear outboard seating positions of law enforcement
vehicles from a requirement in Standard No. 208 which specifies that
lap and shoulder belts must release at a single point. That requirement
provides increased convenience and quicker release. The Laguna design,
however, would not meet the requirement since it has two buckles. As
discussed above, the Laguna system incorporates two buckles so that the
belt system can be operated from the outboard side of the prisoner.
This design feature eliminates the need for police officers to lean
over the prisoner to either buckle or unbuckle a prisoner's belt. The
agency believes that the special need for police officers to avoid
leaning over a prisoner to operate the prisoner's safety belt buckle
outweighs the benefits of having only a single buckle.
NHTSA recognizes that forward-facing rear outboard seating
positions of law enforcement vehicles may be used by non-prisoners as
well as prisoners. In addition, law enforcement vehicles are typically
sold to the general public after their use as law enforcement vehicles.
The agency notes, however, that under the proposal, occupants of the
seats would continue to have the same three-point belt protection as
occupants of non-law enforcement vehicles. The only differences would
relate to comfort, convenience and quickness of release. The agency
believes that these differences do not outweigh the special needs of
law enforcement officers. However, NHTSA does request comments on
whether a label should be required to advise rear seat passengers to
adjust the safety belt for a snug fit. Commenters are asked to address
the wording of such a label and its potential effectiveness. Depending
on the comments, the agency may, or may not, include a requirement for
such a label in a final rule.
While NHTSA would not have the authority to require law enforcement
agencies to replace the special rear seat safety belt systems with
conventional Type 2 safety belts when a vehicle was subsequently sold
to the public, the agency would strongly recommend that law enforcement
agencies do so. Installation of conventional Type 2 safety belt
systems, with an emergency locking retractor and a single point of
release, would afford subsequent owners all of the crash protection
provided by the agency's crash protection standards. In addition, these
safety belt systems would meet the comfort and convenience requirements
of those standards, increasing the likelihood that the safety belts
would be used.
While the special Laguna design is for ``police cars,'' that
company requested that its recommended exclusion be provided for
``police and/or public safety vehicles used, exclusively or not, for
the transport of persons handcuffed or restrained and in the custody,
care, and control of a law enforcement officer.'' NHTSA believes that
the proposed exclusions should apply to law enforcement vehicles
generally, rather than to police ``cars,'' since the rationale is not
dependent on vehicle type, i.e., passenger car or multipurpose
passenger vehicle.
The proposed regulatory text defines ``law enforcement vehicle'' as
any vehicle manufactured primarily for use by the United States or by a
State or local government for police or other law enforcement purposes.
This definition is derived from the definition of ``emergency
vehicle,'' set forth at 49 U.S.C. 32902(e), for purposes of the
[[Page 31134]] corporate average fuel economy program. The agency notes
that vehicles which are manufactured for police or other law
enforcement purposes can ordinarily be identified by special features
such as sirens, decals, a metal cage partition, removed interior rear-
door release handles, or special handling features. The agency requests
comments concerning whether all law enforcement vehicles include at
least some of these (or other) special features, and on whether a more
detailed definition, identifying vehicle attributes, can be developed
that would be appropriate for all law enforcement vehicles.
NHTSA is proposing to make the proposed amendments effective 30
days after publication of a final rule. NHTSA believes that there would
be good cause for such an effective date since the amendments would not
impose any new requirements but instead relieve a restriction.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. 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 ``non-significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The proposed
amendments would not impose any new requirements but simply remove a
restriction. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed amendments would be
so minor that a full regulatory evaluation is not required. There would
be slight cost savings, on the order of $5.00 or less per belt system,
associated with not being required to provide an emergency locking
retractor. For the Laguna system, these cost savings would be offset by
the costs associated with some of the special features of its belt
system, i.e., the extra buckle and the magnets. NHTSA notes, however,
that these special features would not be required by the standard.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. As explained above, the rule would not impose any new
requirements but would instead relieve a restriction for law
enforcement vehicles. Any economic impact would be in the nature of
slight cost savings for small government organizations which purchase
law enforcement vehicles. For these reasons, small businesses, small
organizations and small governmental units which purchase motor
vehicles would not be significantly affected by the proposed
requirements.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this
proposed rule would not have significant federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
F. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would 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.
Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR part
571 be amended as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 would continue
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 would be amended by revising sections S7,
S7.1.1.2, S7.1.1.3 and S7.2 to read as follows: [[Page 31135]]
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.
* * * * *
S7. Seat belt assembly requirements. As used in this section, a law
enforcement vehicle means any vehicle manufactured primarily for use by
the United States or by a State or local government for police or other
law enforcement purposes.
* * * * *
S7.1.1.2(a) A seat belt assembly installed in a motor vehicle other
than a forward control vehicle at any designated seating position other
than the outboard positions of the front and second seats shall adjust
either by a retractor as specified in S7.1.1 or by a manual adjusting
device that conforms to Sec. 571.209.
(b) A seat belt assembly installed in a forward control vehicle at
any designated seating position other than the front outboard seating
positions shall adjust either by a retractor as specified in S7.1.1 or
by a manual adjusting device that conforms to Sec. 571.209.
(c) A seat belt assembly installed in a forward-facing rear
outboard seating position in a law enforcement vehicle shall adjust
either by a retractor as specified in S7.1.1 or by a manual adjusting
device that conforms to Sec. 571.209.
S7.1.1.3 A Type 1 lap belt or the lap belt portion of any Type 2
seat belt assembly installed at any forward-facing outboard designated
seating position of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of
10,000 pounds or less to comply with a requirement of this standard,
except walk-in van-type vehicles and school buses, and except in rear
seating positions in law enforcement vehicles, shall meet the
requirements of S7.1 by means of an emergency locking retractor that
conforms to Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209).
* * * * *
S7.2 Latch mechanism. Except as provided in S7.2(e), each seat
belt assembly installed in any vehicle shall have a latch mechanism
that complies with the requirements specified in S7.2(a) through (d).
(a) The components of the latch mechanism shall be accessible to a
seated occupant in both the stowed and operational positions;
(b) The latch mechanism shall release both the upper torso
restraint and the lap belt simultaneously, if the assembly has a lap
belt and an upper torso restraint that require unlatching for release
of the occupant;
(c) The latch mechanism shall release at a single point; and;
(d) The latch mechanism shall release by a pushbutton action.
(e) The requirements of S7.2 do not apply to any automatic belt
assembly. The requirements specified in S7.2(a) through (c) do not
apply to any safety belt assembly installed at a forward-facing rear
outboard seating position in a law enforcement vehicle.
Issued on June 7, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-14401 Filed 6-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P