[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24797-24800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11392]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-09; Notice 40]
RIN 2127-AE61
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the labeling requirements of Standard 213
that were adopted in a rule facilitating the manufacture of belt-
positioning child seats (booster seats designed to be used with a
vehicle's lap/shoulder belt system). Specifically, this document amends
the requirements for a type of belt-positioning seat known as a dual-
purpose booster (a booster that can be used with either a lap or a lap/
shoulder belt when used with a shield-type component to restrain the
upper torso of a child seated in the booster, but only with a lap/
shoulder belt when used without the shield). In response to a petition
for reconsideration from Gerry Baby Products, NHTSA is amending several
of the labeling requirements to exclude dual-purpose boosters that are
designed such that the shoulder belt is not placed in front of the
child when the booster is used with a shield and a lap/shoulder belt.
This rule also corrects labeling requirements adopted in the rule by
excluding from those requirements car beds and rear-facing restraints,
restraints for which the requirements were not intended.
DATES: This rule is effective August 8, 1995.
Manufacturers may voluntarily comply with the amendments
promulgated by this final rule on or after June 9, 1995.
Petitions for reconsideration of the rule must be received by June
9, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street
S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George Mouchahoir, Office of
Vehicle Safety Standards (telephone 202-366-4919), or Ms. Deirdre
Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel (202-366-2992), National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C.,
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 21, 1994 (59 FR 37167), NHTSA published a final rule
amending Standard 213 to facilitate the manufacture of ``belt-
positioning'' child booster seats (i.e., booster seats designed to be
used with a vehicle's lap/shoulder belt system). The amendment adopted
performance and labeling requirements and test criteria for belt-
positioning booster seats. The labeling requirements were intended to
decrease the likelihood that positioning booster seats will be misused.
The rule adopted requirements in S5.5.2(i)(2) for ``dual purpose''
boosters (boosters that can be used with either a lap or a lap/shoulder
belt when used with a shield-type component to restrain the upper torso
of the restrained child, but only with a lap/shoulder belt when used
without the shield).
To ensure that dual purpose boosters are used with the proper
vehicle belt system, S5.5.2(i)(2) requires dual purpose boosters to be
labeled with the following warning:
WARNING! USE ONLY THE VEHICLE'S LAP BELT SYSTEM, OR THE LAP BELT
PART OF A LAP/SHOULDER BELT SYSTEM WITH THE SHOULDER BELT PLACED
BEHIND THE CHILD, WHEN RESTRAINING THE CHILD WITH THE insert
description of the system element provided to restrain forward
movement of the child's torso when used with a lap belt (e.g.,
shield), AND ONLY THE VEHICLE'S LAP AND SHOULDER BELT SYSTEM WHEN
USING THIS BOOSTER WITHOUT THE insert above description.
The agency adopted the warning regarding the placement of the
shoulder belt portion of the belt system behind the child in response
to test data. Those data showed that, for small shield booster seats,
``the routing of the shoulder belt (three point belt) in front of the
dummy significantly affected the [head injury criterion] HIC, 3 msec
chest clip [acceleration], and head excursion values, regardless of
dummy size.'' Specifically, the study stated that:
The 3 year old dummy/three point belt tests had 80% to 90%
higher HIC values than the corresponding lap only belt tests, while
for the 6 year old dummy, the three point belt tests were 18% to 59%
higher. The 3 year old/three point belt tests were the only test
conditions that produced HIC values above 1000.
The study also showed that routing the shoulder belt in front of
the dummy caused the chest clip acceleration to increase for the 3-
year-old dummy tested in two shield booster seats, from 31G to 44G and
from 38G to 45G, respectively. The chest acceleration increases for
these seats were from about 36G to 52G and 28G to 44G, respectively,
when tested using a six-year-old dummy. NHTSA stated that it did not
know of any shield-type booster seat that performs well when the
booster seat is used with a lap/shoulder belt system and the
restraining system element (i.e., the shield) and the shoulder portion
of the belt system is left in front of the child. In view of safety
concerns about the performance of boosters when the restraining system
element (shield) is used and the shoulder belt is in front of the
child, NHTSA required dual purpose boosters to be labeled with an
instruction to consumers to place the shoulder belt behind the child
when the restraining system element (shield) is used, and required this
instruction to be included in the printed instructions for each of
these boosters (S5.6.1.9).
Petition for Reconsideration
Gerry Baby Products Company petitioned for reconsideration of the
final rule. Gerry informed NHTSA that the Gerry Double Guard, a dual
purpose booster, is designed to have the lap/shoulder belt threaded
through a [[Page 24798]] pathway in the base of the booster when the
booster is used with a shield and a lap/shoulder belt. Gerry said that,
since the shoulder belt is used to attach the booster to the seat when
the booster is in the shield-mode, the instruction to ``use only'' the
lap belt to restrain the booster is misleading for its restraint. Gerry
also stated that since it is impossible to place the shoulder belt
behind the child when the child is restrained in the Double Guard (the
shoulder belt is routed under the child), the labeling requirement
about placing the shoulder belt behind the child is inappropriate for
its booster. Alternatively, the petitioner suggested amending the
warnings required by S5.5.2(i)(2) and S5.6.1.9 to make them more
suitable for the Double Guard.
NHTSA has reviewed Gerry's petition and agrees that the
petitioner's arguments have merit. The instruction about using only the
vehicle's lap belt to attach the booster does not appear correct for a
booster such as the Double Guard, which uses both the lap and shoulder
belts for attachment. Moreover, the instruction about placing the
shoulder belt behind the child is inappropriate for boosters that, by
design, will cause the shoulder belt to be located in a position other
than in front of the child when the booster is installed. Indeed, since
the Double Guard is designed so that the shoulder belt is actually
placed under the child (routed through a pathway in the booster's base)
when the booster is used with a shield and a lap/shoulder belt, the
label required by S5.5.2(i)(2) to place the shoulder belt behind the
child could mislead and confuse consumers about the proper attachment
of the booster seat. Moreover, Gerry's seat, through its design that
routes the shoulder belt under the child, avoids the safety concerns
about the increased HIC, chest acceleration and head excursion found in
the report for shield-boosters used with the shoulder belt routed in
front of the child.
Accordingly, NHTSA is amending S5.5.2(i)(2) and S5.6.1.9 to exclude
from those requirements dual-purpose boosters that are designed such
that, when the restraint is used according to the manufacturer's
instruction, the shoulder belt cannot be placed in front of the child
when the booster is used with a shield and a lap/shoulder belt.
However, this rule retains a requirement that all dual purpose boosters
be labeled with a warning or contain a warning in their instructions to
use the booster with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system when
using the booster without a shield.
Correction
The July 1994 rule required restraints other than dual-purpose
boosters to be labeled with a warning similar to that discussed above
for dual-purpose boosters. The rule required belt-positioning boosters
to be labeled with a warning to use only the vehicle's lap/shoulder
belt system to restrain the child. Shield-type boosters were required
to bear a warning label to use only a lap belt or the lap belt part of
a lap/shoulder belt system. The intent of the requirements was to
``decrease the likelihood that belt-positioning seats will be
misused,'' i.e., used with an incorrect vehicle belt system. 59 FR at
37167, 37172.
The rule adopting the labeling requirements intended those
requirements to apply only to booster seats, and not to every type of
child restraint system. However, as drafted, the rule applies those
requirements to car beds and rear-facing child restraint systems (a
child restraint that positions a child to face in the direction
opposite to the normal direction of travel of the motor vehicle).
Because the application of the labeling requirement to car beds and
rear-facing restraints was inadvertent, NHTSA is correcting the error
by revising the introductory paragraph of S5.5.2(i)(1) to exclude those
restraint systems from the requirement. NHTSA is also making a
conforming change to S5.6.1.9(a) of the standard, which requires the
warning about proper belt use to be included in the manufacturer's
instructions for the restraint. NHTSA is amending that section to
exclude from that requirement instructions for car seats and rear-
facing child restraints. (This rule also redesignates S5.6.1.9 (a)
through (c) as S5.6.1.10 (a) through (c), since they relate to a
subject matter that is unrelated to that of the introductory paragraph
of S5.6.1.9.)
Request for Interpretation
In the July 1994 rule, NHTSA adopted a requirement prohibiting
belt-positioning boosters from being certified for use on aircraft. In
its petition for reconsideration, Gerry asked how this requirement
applies to the Double Guard, given that the booster is both a belt-
positioning booster and a shield booster.
As a result of the July 1994 rule, Standard 213's certification
requirements for the two types of boosters are different. The rule
requires that manufacturers of belt-positioning boosters label them
with the following statement: ``This Restraint is Not Certified for Use
in Aircraft.'' Shield-type boosters are treated differently because
they can be certified for aircraft use. Manufacturers of shield
boosters wishing to so certify their boosters must label them with the
following statement: ``This Restraint is Certified for Use in Motor
Vehicles and Aircraft.''
Gerry said the Double Guard is presently labeled with the aircraft
certification, in accordance with the above requirement. Gerry asks
whether it could certify its Double Guard, when used with its shield,
for aircraft use. To make clear the limitation of that certification,
as well as to comply with the new rule, Gerry would state that ``THIS
RESTRAINT IS NOT CERTIFIED FOR USE IN AIRCRAFT,'' but insert the
following language, ``When used without the shield as a belt
positioning seat,'' in front of the required statement.
NHTSA has reviewed the labeling requirement in question and has
determined that it can be interpreted as permitting Gerry to label its
booster as it desires. Given the dual nature of Gerry's Double Guard,
it appears to be subject to the labeling requirements for both shield
and belt-positioning boosters. It further appears that the booster
complies with the requirements for both types. The only variation from
the required labeling is Gerry's added clarification, ``When used
without the shield as a belt-positioning seat * * *'' This addition is
appropriate, and necessary, to clarify the required text. The agency's
longstanding position with regard to the labeling required by Standard
213 is that voluntarily added wording which clarifies required text is
permitted, as long as the added language does not confuse or obscure
the required labeling. Gerry's added text does not confuse or obscure
the required label. Indeed, it clarifies the labeling. Therefore, it
would be permitted.
However, Gerry's ability to certify its Double Guard booster for
aircraft could be affected in the future by possible rulemaking on the
certification of child restraints for aircraft. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is concerned about the effectiveness of booster
seats on aircraft, as a result of a testing program performed at FAA's
Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI). The CAMI research is discussed in a
report entitled, ``The Performance of Child Restraint Devices in
Transport Airplane Passenger Seats,'' which was published in September
1994. A copy of the report has been placed in the NHTSA rulemaking
docket for this notice.
Effective Date
This amendment is effective June 9, 1995. An effective date earlier
than 180 days after the date of issuance of this [[Page 24799]] rule is
in the public interest because this rule relieves manufacturers of
child restraints of certain designs from a labeling requirement that is
inappropriate for those restraints. Yet, this rule specifies a warning
requirement for those restraints in place of the removed requirement,
to help ensure the restraints are properly used with the vehicle's lap/
shoulder belt system. A 90-day effective date provides manufacturers
sufficient leadtime to print revised warning labels.
Nevertheless, this rule provides an optional early effective date
for manufacturers that can meet the new requirements sooner than 90
days. They may comply with the amendments in this rule any time after
June 9, 1995, but not later than August 8, 1995.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The agency has considered the
impact of this rulemaking action under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures, and has determined
that it is not ``significant'' under them. NHTSA has further determined
that the effects of this rulemaking are minimal and that preparation of
a full final regulatory evaluation is not warranted. Manufacturers will
be minimally affected by this action because it only makes slight
changes to the July 1994 final rule which only minimally affected
manufacturers since the rule simply permitted new designs in booster
seats and did not require any design change or impose additional costs
on any party.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Of the 11 current child restraint manufacturers known to the
agency (not counting vehicle manufacturers that produce and install
built-in restraints), there are three that qualify as small businesses.
This is not a substantial number of small entities.
Regardless of the number of small entities, NHTSA believes the
economic impact on them is not significant since today's rule only
makes minor changes to the existing labeling requirements for some
dual-purpose restraints. The agency believes this rule has no impact on
the cost of child restraint systems, and that small organizations and
governmental jurisdictions that purchase the systems will therefore not
be significantly affected by the rule. In view of the above, the agency
has not prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. The agency
has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This 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.
PART 571--[AMENDED]
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 571 as
set forth below.
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. Section 571.213 is amended by revising the introductory text of
S5.5.2(i)(1), revising S5.5.2(i)(2), republishing the introductory
paragraph of S5.6.1.9, redesignating S5.6.1.9 (a) through (c) as
S5.6.1.10(a) through (c) and revising (a) and (b) and republishing (c)
to read as follows:
Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems.
* * * * *
S5.5.2 * * *
(i)(1) For a booster seat that is recommended for use with either a
vehicle's Type I or Type II seat belt assembly, one of the following
statements, as appropriate:
* * * * *
(2)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section,
for a booster seat which is recommended for use with both a vehicle's
Type I and Type II seat belt assemblies, the following statement:
WARNING! USE ONLY THE VEHICLE'S LAP BELT SYSTEM, OR THE LAP BELT
PART OF A LAP/SHOULDER BELT SYSTEM WITH THE SHOULDER BELT PLACED
BEHIND THE CHILD, WHEN RESTRAINING THE CHILD WITH THE insert
description of the system element provided to restrain forward
movement of the child's torso when used with a lap belt (e.g.,
shield), AND ONLY THE VEHICLE'S LAP AND SHOULDER BELT SYSTEM WHEN
USING THIS BOOSTER WITHOUT THE insert above description.
(ii) A booster seat which is recommended for use with both a
vehicle's Type I and Type II seat belt assemblies is not subject to
S5.5.2(i)(2)(i) if, when the booster is used with the shield or similar
component, the booster will cause the shoulder belt to be located in a
position other than in front of the child when the booster is
installed. However, such a booster shall be labeled with a warning to
use the booster with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system when
using the booster without a shield.
* * * * *
S5.6.1.9 In the case of each rear-facing child restraint system
that has a means for repositioning the seating surface of the system
that allows the system's occupant to move from a reclined position to
an upright position during testing, the instructions shall include a
warning against impeding the ability of the restraint to change
adjustment position.
S5.6.1.10(a) For instructions for a booster seat that is
recommended for use with either a vehicle's Type I or Type II seat belt
assembly, one of the following statements, as appropriate, and the
reasons for the statement:
(i) WARNING! USE ONLY THE VEHICLE'S LAP AND SHOULDER BELT SYSTEM
WHEN RESTRAINING THE CHILD IN THIS
BOOSTER SEAT; or,
(ii) WARNING! USE ONLY THE
[[Page 24800]] VEHICLE'S LAP BELT SYSTEM, OR THE
LAP BELT PART OF A LAP/SHOULDER
BELT SYSTEM WITH THE SHOULDER
BELT PLACED BEHIND THE CHILD, WHEN
RESTRAINING THE CHILD IN THIS SEAT.
(b)(i) Except as provided in
S5.6.1.10(b)(ii), the instructions for a
booster seat that is recommended for
use with both a vehicle's Type I and
Type II seat belt assemblies shall
include the following statement and the
reasons therefor:
WARNING! USE ONLY THE VEHICLE'S
LAP BELT SYSTEM, OR THE LAP BELT
PART OF A LAP/SHOULDER BELT SYSTEM
WITH THE SHOULDER BELT PLACED
BEHIND THE CHILD, WHEN RESTRAINING
THE CHILD WITH THE insert description of
the system element provided to restrain
forward movement of the child's torso when
used with a lap belt (e.g., shield), AND ONLY
THE VEHICLE'S LAP AND SHOULDER
BELT SYSTEM WHEN USING THIS
BOOSTER WITHOUT THE insert above
description.
(b)(ii) A booster seat which is
recommended for use with both a
vehicle's Type I and Type II seat belt
assemblies is not subject to
S5.6.1.10(b)(i) if, when the booster is
used with the shield or similar
component, the booster will cause the
shoulder belt to be located in a position
other than in front of the child when the
booster is installed. However, the
instructions for such a booster shall
include a warning to use the booster
with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt
system when using the booster without
a shield.
(c) The instructions for belt-
positioning seats shall include the
statement, ``This restraint is not certified
for aircraft use,'' and the reasons for this
statement.
* * * * *
Issued on May 4, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-11392 Filed 5-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P