Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Ricardo Martinez
January 26, 1998
[Federal Register: January 26, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 16)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3662-3666]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26ja98-10]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-97-3191; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AF66
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the requirements for seat belts at
forward-facing rear outboard seating positions of police cars and other
law enforcement vehicles to facilitate the transporting of prisoners.
It does so by permitting those belts to be equipped with manual
adjustment devices instead of emergency locking retractors, and
excluding them from requirements for the accessibility of belt latch
plates, the simultaneous release of the lap and shoulder belt portions
of a lap and shoulder belt, and the release of the latch mechanism at a
single point. This action was initiated in response to a petition for
rulemaking submitted by Laguna Manufacturing, Inc.
DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective
February 25, 1998.
Any petitions for reconsideration must be received by NHTSA no
later than March 12, 1998.
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: For technical information: Mr. John
Lee, Light Duty Vehicle Division, Office of Crashworthiness Standards,
NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4924. FAX
number (202) 366-4329, Mr. Lee's e-mail address is: jlee@nhtsa.dot.gov,
For legal information: Mr. Otto Matheke, Office of
[[Page 3663]]
Chief Counsel, NCC-20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-
5263. FAX number (202) 366-3820, Mr. Matheke's e-mail address is:
omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Standard No. 208
Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires an integral
Type 2 (lap and shoulder) safety belt assembly to be installed 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
(ELR). The ELR 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 to prevent the spooling out of any more
webbing.
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. This is important because
although almost all states require the use of seat belts, the decision
to use a belt still depends on each person's willingness to buckle up.
The ELR also reduces the likelihood of excessive slack in safety belts
during use.
Standard No. 208 also requires that a seat belt must have a latch
that is accessible in two different circumstances: (1) When the seat
belt is not being worn and is stowed, and (2) when it is being worn.
The latch must also release the lap belt and shoulder belt at a single
point by a pushbutton action.
Law enforcement agencies in the United States typically use
modified versions of conventional passenger cars and light trucks for
patrol and other duties. These vehicles are certified by their original
manufacturers as meeting the requirements of all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards. Although these vehicles are modified to
meet the general needs of use in law enforcement, they are often
subject to further modifications after they are purchased and before
they are put into service. Typical modifications include the
installation of a partition or barrier between the front and rear seats
and replacement of the original rear seats with seats specifically
designed for prisoner transport. Seats for prisoner transport must be
resistant to damage by the occupant and should be designed so that they
may be easily cleaned and disinfected if they become soiled with bodily
fluids or other human effluents. As a result, standard rear seats in
police vehicles may be removed and replaced with seats made from hard,
damage resistant materials such as molded plastic or fiberglass. These
seats are not only more damage resistant and easily disinfected, they
also use less space inside the vehicle. Since the installation of a
barrier between the front and rear seats may reduce space in the rear
seat, the installation of specialized prisoner seating may provide
greater room for rear seat occupants.
The installation of barriers and specialized seating systems may
also require replacement of the safety belts originally supplied with
the vehicle. The safety belts originally installed may be incompatible
with the design of the prisoner transport seats. This may be because
the prisoner transport seat places the occupant in a different position
relative to the belts and belt anchorages installed during manufacture.
The prisoner transport seat itself may, because of its geometry and
design, change occupant dynamics in the event of a crash. In addition,
barriers, which place an unyielding surface between the front and rear
seats, may place a rear seat occupant in close proximity to a structure
not in place when the original restraint system was designed. Under
these circumstances, modification or replacement of the original belt
system may be both necessary and desirable.
B. Petition for Rulemaking
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 use by 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 to limiting the movement of prisoners being transported in
forward-facing rear outboard seating positions in these vehicles. That
company argued that the requirement for an ELR is inappropriate for
safety belt systems used by prisoners, since it allows too much slack,
and thus too much freedom of movement, in non-emergency situations.
This is because these retractors freely spool out webbing in those
situations. Laguna stated that concerns about ELRs have led some police
departments to refrain altogether from safety belting a prisoner and
instead use a ``hog tie restraint'' and lay the prisoner down on the
rear seat. As a result, 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
ELR, for safety belts intended for use by prisoners. That company
stated that such an amendment would afford the prisoner all of the
crash protection provided by the standard for other occupants and only
eliminate the necessity for providing a feature intended to provide
comfort and convenience. Laguna argued that a prisoner who is
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. Laguna also noted that existing requirements in
Standard No. 208 make the use of belts which fasten adjacent to the
side of the vehicle, rather than near the center, difficult. Laguna
argued that such belts would be desirable for police use. The company
indicated that belts that fasten on the outside may be connected by an
officer without requiring that the officer lean over or across a
prisoner, thereby reducing the risk of injury to that officer by a
violent prisoner.
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 several 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
ELR. Second, the Laguna system uses two buckles instead of one. Third,
the Laguna system reverses the permanent attachment points and the
buckling points. The Laguna system is permanently attached at the
anchorage where a conventional system is buckled and is buckled at the
anchorages where the conventional system is permanently attached. 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
[[Page 3664]]
belt portion is permanently attached to the lower outboard anchorage
and the end of shoulder belt portion is permanently attached to the
upper outboard anchorage. The buckle is mounted at the anchorage near
the center of the vehicle. As noted above, the permanent attachment
points and buckling points are reversed for the Laguna system. The
middle of the Laguna belt is permanently anchored at the anchorage near
the center of the vehicle. The end of the lap belt portion buckles at
the lower outboard anchorage and the end of the shoulder belt buckles
at the upper outboard anchorage. When the belt is not in use, magnets
attached to the lap and the shoulder belt portions of the Laguna belt
are used to attach them to the steel safety cage used to separate the
front and rear seats in police vehicles.
C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
After considering the issues raised by Laguna, NHTSA published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on June 13, 1995 (60 FR 31132)
proposing that Standard No. 208 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 proposed two amendments: (1) That a manual
tightening system, instead of an ELR, be permitted for those belts in
law enforcement vehicles and (2) that safety belts installed at
forward-facing rear outboard seating positions of these vehicles be
excluded from a requirement that lap and shoulder belts must release at
a single point. The agency also requested comments on requiring a
warning label advising users of the rear seats that the belts must be
tightened manually to provide a proper fit.
D. Public Comments
Comments were received in response to the June 13, 1995 NPRM from
one prisoner seating manufacturer (AEDEC), fourteen law enforcement
organizations, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, the Chrysler
Corporation and the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC). All
but one of these commenters agreed with the agency's proposal to modify
safety belt requirements for forward-facing rear outboard seating
positions in law enforcement vehicles. In response to the agency's
request for comments on labels, six commenters recommended that some
type of label should be visible to non-prisoner occupants in the rear
seating positions to remind them to manually tighten safety belts that
are not equipped with retractors. The remaining commenters either
opposed labeling or offered no comment.
The affirmative commenters generally agreed with the modifications
presented in the NPRM. Three law enforcement organizations indicated
that they transport prisoners in the front seat. One of these
organizations recommended extending the applicability of the amendments
to the front outboard passenger seating position. The Wisconsin
Department of Transportation stated that the law enforcement agency
should assume control of requiring re-installation of the original
belts when a used law enforcement vehicle is sold to the general
public. However, the Tennessee Department of Safety disagrees with
requiring re-installation of the original belts. That Department
claimed that re-installation could create a tremendous expense.
One commenter, AEDEC International Inc. (a prisoner safety seat
manufacturer) strongly opposed the NPRM. AEDEC stated its concern that
proposed changes in the requirements would inadvertently and
unnecessarily diminish existing protection for prisoners found in
Standard No. 208. AEDEC argued that the idea of the restraint belt
originating from the center of the seat and extending to the outboard
side of the seating position is old technology and had been long
discarded for more workable arrangements similar to its own system,
which uses a shoulder belt, but not a lap belt. As is the case with the
system described by Laguna in its petition, the AEDEC system does not
meet Standard No. 208. AEDEC also indicated that the proposals in the
NPRM were narrow in scope and could be construed to be product
specific, exclude competitive products and endorse outdated technology.
AEDEC also stated that the proposed changes overlooked hazards to
handcuffed prisoners seated in a conventional fashion. The company
noted that seated prisoner restrained in the manner proposed by the
amendments would have the handcuff of the prisoner's rearwardly cuffed
hands exposed to the hard fiberglass seat. Prisoners seated in this
fashion have, according to AEDEC, regularly sustained damage to the
wrist. AEDEC recommended a two-year innovation period that would grant
greater latitude to the law enforcement community in their use of rear
seat prisoner restraints as well as an in-depth study of prisoner
seating and restraints. If such a study is not undertaken, AEDEC urged
that amendments be adopted allowing use of a retractor or a manual
adjusting device or a combination of the two. In addition, AEDEC
advocated allowance of a belt assembly consisting of a shoulder belt
only and stated that consideration be given to measures to retard
lateral movement of prisoners and provide relief for the pressure of
the handcuff against the wrist.
II. Analysis of Public Comments
As noted above, AEDEC offered several comments voicing concern
about the proposal contained in the NPRM. The company argued that the
proposed amendments both endorsed outdated technology and were design
specific. While AEDEC did not provide specific information on how
adoption of the proposed rule embraced the use of outdated technology,
NHTSA has concluded that the benefits of allowing greater design
flexibility for prisoner safety belts outweigh any disadvantages.
Elimination of the requirement that safety belts have retractors and
allowing the use of manual adjusters could be said to be a
technological step backward in the context of ordinary passenger cars.
However, in the case of prisoner transport, a handcuffed occupant is
unable to fasten a belt and would have to have a safety belt fastened
and adjusted by another person. The handcuffed occupant is not going to
be deterred from using a safety belt because it must be manually
adjusted or must be fastened in two places. Similarly, accessibility of
the latch mechanism is of lesser concern than is the case in other
vehicles because the latch location is not as critical to the
occupant's use of the safety belt. AEDEC also contended that the
proposed rule was unduly design specific and would limit competing
products and systems. NHTSA notes that the proposal and the final rule
both allow the use of either manual adjustment or retractors on safety
belts for police vehicles. In addition, the final rule also allows
different latch designs to be used. NHTSA has concluded that this
provides manufacturers with greater flexibility, not less, and is
certainly less design specific than previous requirements.
AEDEC also contends that the proposed amendments, which retain
existing requirements for Type 2 belts rather than allowing the use of
a shoulder belt without a lap belt (a design used in AEDEC's product),
are also design specific, favor the Laguna design, and increase the
risk of handcuff induced injuries to seated prisoners. NHTSA has
concluded that employment of a shoulder belt alone, rather than a lap
and shoulder belt, might very well increase the risk of injury to
seated
[[Page 3665]]
prisoners in the event of a crash. Prisoner transport seats are
generally hard and unyielding. In comparison to upholstered seats,
these seats increase the chance that an occupant may move both
laterally and forward (i.e., submarining) in the event of a crash.
Given the fact that an occupant moving forward is likely to contact the
hard and stiff barrier between the front and rear seats, NHTSA
concludes that elimination of the lap belt requirement would result in
an increased risk of injury. While retention of the lap belt
requirement may favor designs employing such belts, the agency
concludes that such designs decrease the risk of injuries in the event
of crash.
AEDEC also raised concerns regarding an injury mechanism known as
handcuff neuropathy. Handcuff neuropathy apparently occurs when
handcuffs are tightened to an extent that the peripheral nerves of the
wrist are damaged. AEDEC argued that safety belts that hold a prisoner
tightly against a rigid seatback when the prisoner's hands are secured
behind his back by handcuffs may result in an increased risk of
handcuff neuropathy. The agency has concluded, however, that the risk
of handcuff neuropathy may not be properly addressed by safety belt
design. Review of medical literature submitted by AEDEC indicates that
handcuff neuropathy results from over-tightening of handcuffs rather
than the use of safety belts to restrain a handcuffed prisoner in a
vehicle. The agency also concludes that countermeasures for any such
risk may be employed without requiring or allowing loose fitting safety
belts. AEDEC itself has attempted to address this concern by molding
the hard plastic seat of its prisoner transport system with recesses
for the prisoner's arms.
AEDEC also urged the agency to conduct a two year study of prisoner
restraints and transport and consider the adoption of a separate safety
standard for prisoner restraints. NHTSA notes that such a study and the
promulgation of an entirely new safety standard, are well beyond the
scope of the proposal contained in the NPRM. The agency does, however,
agree with AEDEC's suggestion that in lieu of conducting a study of
prisoner transport restraint systems that manufacturers be given an
opportunity to evaluate new designs. The amendments NHTSA is adopting
in this final rule will provide manufacturers with an opportunity to
innovate.
Six commenters, (Rhode Island State Police, Missouri State Highway
Patrol, Pennsylvania State Police, Washington State Patrol, Tennessee
Department of Safety, and the Illinois State Police), advocated that
the agency require a warning label advising users of a rear outboard
seat equipped with a manually adjusted belt that the belts must be
tightened after they are fastened. The agency concurs with any
reasonable measure that will promote belt use. NHTSA has concluded in
this instance, however, that such warning labels would be superfluous.
Prisoners being transported are regularly restrained for their own
protection and the protection of the officers transporting them. In the
case of non-prisoners who use the seating systems, NHTSA observes that
one commenter indicated that such labels would not be necessary since
proper operation of the belt systems could be addressed through
internal policies and training. NHTSA has concluded that in those cases
where belts used for prisoner transport are not equipped with
retractors, the characteristics of these belts, which will differ
markedly from standard safety belts, will be obvious to non-prisoner
occupants. In view of these circumstances, the agency concludes that
requiring a warning label for rear seat passengers, advising them to
manually tighten belts equipped with manual adjusters, is unnecessary.
Two commenters, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT)
and the Tennessee Department of Safety, took differing positions on
whether law enforcement agencies should be required to re-install the
original equipment belts prior to sale of a law enforcement vehicle.
Wisconsin DOT argued that such re-installation should be required,
while the Tennessee Department of Safety disagrees with requiring re-
installation of the original belts. NHTSA strongly believes that any
law enforcement vehicle should have its original restraint system re-
installed prior to sale for civilian use. However, the agency does not
have the authority to require law enforcement agencies to re-install
the original restraint system.
III. Final Rule
As noted above, with the adoption of this final rule, NHTSA is
amending Standard No. 208 as it applies to law enforcement vehicles to
permit safety belts in such vehicles to be equipped with manual
adjustment devices instead of emergency locking retractors, and
excluding them from requirements for the accessibility of belt latch
plates, the simultaneous release of the lap and shoulder belt portions
of a lap and shoulder belt, and the release of the latch mechanism at a
single point. The amendments will enhance safety for both law
enforcement officers and prisoners. NHTSA believes that a restrained
prisoner should be afforded the same or similar crash protection as
non-prisoners. Modified seating and belt systems can increase law
enforcement officer safety by reducing the need to reach across the
prisoner to fasten the safety belt. These seating and belt systems will
increase belt usage for prisoners.
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 amendments
will not impose any new requirements but simply remove a restriction.
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. Therefore, the impacts of the amendments will be so minor
that a full regulatory evaluation is not required.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The final rule primarily affects motor vehicle manufacturers, since the
majority of NHTSA Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to motor
vehicles rather than to motor vehicle equipment. Almost all motor
vehicle manufacturers do not qualify as small businesses.
The Small Business Administration's regulations define a small
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily
within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)) SBA's size standards
are organized according to Standard Industrial Classification Codes
(SIC). SIC Code 3714 ``Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories'' has a
small business size standard of 750 employees or fewer.
[[Page 3666]]
The agency notes that there are several manufacturers of equipment
for police and emergency vehicles with fewer than 750 employees. The
principal impact of the amendments contained in this final rule is to
allow the installation of specialized prisoner restraint systems in
emergency vehicles prior to the sale of the vehicle to the first
purchaser for purposes other than resale. This provides the opportunity
for the manufacturers to sell these systems to vehicle manufacturers or
dealers rather than directly to end users. As the rule does not impose
any new burdens on manufacturers of prisoner restraint systems and
allows greater opportunities, the economic effect for these small
businesses would be beneficial.
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 rule.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this rule under the National Environmental
Policy Act and determined that it does not have a significant impact on
the human environment.
E. 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 the rule does
not have significant federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a Federalism Assessment.
F. Civil Justice Reform
This rule will 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 revising sections S7, S7.1.1.2,
S7.1.1.3 and S7.2 to read as follows:
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: January 29, 1998.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-1785 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P