Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Christopher A. Hart
Federal Register
May 18, 1994
[Federal Register: May 18, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 89]
RIN 2127-AF09
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the response to two petitions for
reconsideration of a March 2, 1993 final rule amending Standard No.
208, Occupant Crash Protection. The final rule provided all
manufacturers of certain trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles
designed to be driven by persons with disabilities an alternative to
complying with the existing occupant restraint requirements.
The first petition requested the extension of this option to all
vehicles designed for persons with disabilities. This petition is
denied because the agency does not believe that these vehicles have any
unique features warranting an exclusion from the existing requirements.
The second petition requested the option of installing Type 2A
belts instead of Type 2 belts. This petition is granted for the
driver's seating position because a Type 2 belt cannot be properly
positioned to protect the occupants of some wheelchairs.
DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective
June 17, 1994.
Petition date: Any petitions for reconsideration must be received
by NHTSA no later than June 17, 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. Daniel Cohen, NRM-12, Office of
Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366-2264.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 2, 1993, NHTSA published a final
rule amending Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to provide
manufacturers of trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles designed to
be driven by persons with disabilities with an alternative to complying
with the existing occupant restraint requirement (58 FR 11975). Under
that alternative, these manufacturers are permitted to install manual
safety belts that have not been dynamically tested at the front
outboard seating positions instead of installing dynamically tested
manual safety belts. The March 1993 final rule also gave them the
option of installing manual safety belts that have not been dynamically
tested instead of complying with requirements that have been issued,
but are not yet effective, for the installation of dynamically tested
automatic restraints in those positions.
The agency received two petitions for reconsideration of the March
1993 final rule. As explained below, the petition seeking an expansion
of this exclusion to any vehicle designed for use by persons with
disabilities is denied. In response to the other petition, NHTSA is
amending Standard No. 208 to allow the installation of Type 2A belts at
the driver's seating position in vehicles affected by the March 1993
final rule.
Affected Vehicles
The March 1993 final rule excluded ``vehicles manufactured for
operation by persons with disabilities'' from certain requirements of
Standard No. 208. The Braun Corporation (Braun) petitioned for
reconsideration of the March 1993 final rule because they believe the
exclusion should extend to all vehicles manufactured for persons with
disabilities, and not just those manufactured for operation by persons
with disabilities. A number of commenters on the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) preceding the March 1993 final rule also asked for an
extension to other vehicles, particularly vehicles modified for the
right front passenger position.
NHTSA continues to believe that the exclusion granted by the March
1993 final rule should not be extended. The modifications discussed by
Braun in its petition for reconsideration, raising the side door and
roof, are similar to modifications made to a number of vehicles, not
only those manufactured for persons with disabilities. For example,
Care Concepts, Inc., in a previous docket submission (Docket No. 74-14;
Notice 76-004) advertises a van conversion that is accomplished by
lowering the floor in certain Chrysler products such as the Plymouth
Voyager, the Dodge Caravan, and the Chrysler Town and Country minivan.
As stated previously, NHTSA believes that all individuals are entitled
to an equivalent level of occupant crash protection. However, NHTSA
believes that the goal of providing equivalent crash protection should
not be achieved at the expense of the goal of providing mobility to all
Americans. NHTSA excluded vehicles manufactured for operation by
persons with disabilities from the dynamic testing requirements because
those vehicles have unique modifications to the driver's seating
position (e.g., hand operated controls) which make it difficult to
comply with these requirements. Without the exclusion, manufacturers
might not be able to produce these vehicles.
By contrast, the modifications discussed by Braun are not unique to
vehicles manufactured for persons with disabilities. Other
manufacturers are making similar modifications to other vehicles and
certifying to the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208.
Because it is possible to certify these vehicles, NHTSA finds no
justification for sacrificing the goal of equivalent crash protection.
Braun may have to choose another option for how these modifications
will be made in order to certify the vehicles. For example, other
manufacturers place the lift door at the rear of the van or lower the
floor to provide the necessary height. Therefore, the Braun petition is
denied.
Type 2A Belts
The March 1993 final rule allows manufacturers of vehicles
manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities the option of
installing non-dynamically tested Type 2 manual belts (integrated lap
and shoulder belts) at the front outboard seating positions. NHTSA did
not allow the installation of Type 2A belts (non-integrated lap and
shoulder belts), despite requests of commenters on the NPRM, because
the commenters had not provided any information to suggest that
equivalent or greater safety benefits would be achieved.
Independent Mobility Systems, Inc. (IMS) petitioned for
reconsideration of the issue of Type 2A belts. IMS enclosed photographs
illustrating various ways to position a Type 2 belt around a person
seated in a closed arm wheelchair. In one example, the lap belt portion
is placed over the top of the arm rests. If positioned this way, the
lap belt crosses the person's abdomen and cannot be positioned on the
pelvis as it is supposed to be. In the other example, the lap belt
portion is placed in front of the arm rests. If positioned this way,
the occupant would receive virtually no benefit from the belt because
there is so much slack introduced.
NHTSA believes that the photographs enclosed with the IMS petition
support the requested amendment. If Type 2A belts were permitted, a
person seated in a fixed arm wheelchair could separately attach the lap
belt portion under the arm rests and position it properly on his or her
pelvis. NHTSA recognizes that it has stated that Type 2 belts offer
greater safety benefits than Type 2A belts, because they are less
likely to be improperly used (e.g., by attaching only the lap portion).
However, in this situation, the Type 2A belt is the only belt which can
be properly used.
NHTSA notes that the only seating position for which the requested
change regarding Type 2A belts is necessary is the driver's seating
position. The driver's seat is the only seat which is required to be in
a vehicle. (See Standard No. 207.) If a vehicle is to be driven by a
person in a wheelchair, the manufacturer must install a seat at the
driver's position which can be removed to allow a person to drive while
seated in a wheelchair.
Any other location in a vehicle designed for an occupied wheelchair
is not required to also have a seat. If there were no seat, that
location would not be a designated seating position. Since safety belts
are required for only those locations that are designated seating
positions, there would not be any safety belt requirements applicable
to the seatless location. Thus, a manufacturer may voluntarily install
any type of occupant restraint in that location.
Therefore, NHTSA is amending Standard No. 208 to allow the use of
Type 2A belts at the driver's seating position in vehicles affected by
the March 1993 final rule.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This notice was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. NHTSA has
examined the impact of this rulemaking action and determined that, it
is not ``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA does not
believe that there is a cost difference between Type 2 and Type 2A
belts. In addition, NHTSA notes that the change made in this final rule
is optional.
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. As explained above, there will not be a significant economic
impact as a result of this final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), NHTSA notes that 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)
Finally, 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 section
103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety
Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), 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. Section 105 of the Safety Act
(15 U.S.C. 1394) 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: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.208 is amended by revising S4.2.1.2 to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
* * * * *
S4.2.1.2 Second option--belt system. The vehicle shall have seat
belt assemblies that conform to Standard 209 (49 CFR 571.209) installed
as follows:
(a) A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for
each designated seating position in convertibles, open-body type
vehicles, and walk-in van-type trucks.
(b) In vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with
disabilities, a Type 2 or Type 2A seat belt assembly shall be installed
for the driver's seating position, a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be
installed for each other outboard designated seating position that
includes the windshield header within the head impact area, and a Type
1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each other
designated seating position.
(c) In all vehicles except those for which requirements are
specified in S4.2.1.2 (a) or (b), a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be
installed for each outboard designated seating position that includes
the windshield header within the head impact area, and a Type 1 or Type
2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each other designated
seating position.
* * * * *
Issued on May 11, 1994.
Christopher A. Hart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-11919 Filed 5-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P