3662 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

position if compliance were voluntary

and attempted by some, but not all

manufacturers. That rule applies

uniformly to all manufacturers and will

ensure that the competitive position of

the manufacturers will not be

significantly affected by the required

safety improvements.

D. Preemptive Effect and Judicial

Review

Under 49 U.S.C. § 30103(b), 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.

49 U.S.C. § 30161 sets forth a procedure

for judicial review of final rulemaking

establishing, amending, or revoking

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceeding before parties may file suit

in court. This final rule does not have

any retroactive effect.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–511),

there are no new requirements for

information collection associated with

this response to petitions for

reconsideration and technical

amendment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Incorporation by reference,

Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles,

Rubber and rubber products, Tires.

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR part 571 is amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 571

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. Sections S5.1 and S6.6(a) of 49 CFR

571.223 are revised to read as follows:

§ 571.223 Standard No. 223; rear impact

guards

* * * * *

S5.1 Projected Vertical Height. The

horizontal member of each guard, when

viewed from the rear as it would be

installed on a trailer pursuant to the

installation instructions or procedures

required by S5.5 of this standard, shall

have a vertical height of at least 100 mm

at each point across the guard width,

when projected horizontally on a

transverse vertical plane. Those

installation instructions or procedures

shall specify that the guard is to be

mounted so that all portions of the

horizontal member necessary to achieve

a 100 mm high projected vertical height

are located not more than 305 mm

forward of the vehicle’s rear extremity,

as defined in S4 of 49 CFR 571.224, Rear

Impact Protection. See Figure 1 of this

section.

* * * * *

S6.6 Force Application.

* * * * *

(a) Using the force application device,

apply force to the guard in a forward

direction such that the displacement

rate of the force application device is

the rate, plus or minus 10 percent,

designated by the guard manufacturer

within the range of 2.0 cm per minute

to 9.0 cm per minute. If the guard

manufacturer does not designate a rate,

any rate within that range may be

chosen.

* * * * *

3. In § 571.224 section S3 is revised

and section S4 is amended by adding a

definition of pulpwood trailer and

revising the definition of Special

purpose vehicle to read as follows:

§ 571.224 Standard No. 224; rear impact

protection

* * * * *

S3. Application. This standard

applies to trailers and semitrailers with

a GVWR of 4,536 kg or more. The

standard does not apply to pole trailers,

pulpwood trailers, special purpose

vehicles, wheels back vehicles, or

temporary living quarters as defined in

49 CFR 529.2.

If a cargo tank motor vehicle, as

defined in 49 CFR 171.8, is certified to

carry hazardous materials and has a rear

bumper or rear end protection device

conforming with 49 CFR part 178

located in the area of the horizontal

member of the rear underride guard

required by this standard, the guard

need not comply with the energy

absorption requirement (S5.2.2) of 49

CFR 571.223.

S4. Definitions.

* * * * *

Pulpwood trailer means a trailer that

is designed exclusively for harvesting

logs or pulpwood and constructed with

a skeletal frame with no means for

attachment of a solid bed, body, or

container.

* * * * *

Special purpose vehicle means a

trailer or semitrailer having workperforming equipment that, while the

vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves

through the area that could be occupied

by the horizontal member of the rear

underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1

through S5.1.3.

* * * * *

Issued on: January 20, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–1783 Filed 1–21–98; 2:18 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

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 forwardfacing 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 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
3664 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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 forwardfacing 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 reinstallation 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 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 overtightening 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.
3666 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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:

§ 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 § 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

§ 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

§ 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 forwardfacing 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