Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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: [email protected],

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:

[email protected].

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