Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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