[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63651-63654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30233]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-09; Notice 43]
RIN 2127-AF02
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, delay of
compliance date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document delays until September 1, 1996, the date on
which manufacturers of add-on (portable) child restraint systems must
comply with a final rule that was published July 6, 1995 (60 FR 35126),
and corrected September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50477). The rule amended
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child
Restraint Systems,'' to add a greater array of sizes and weights of
test dummies for use in compliance tests. Today's document responds to
those requests in petitions for reconsideration of the rule relating to
the compliance date. It provides needed leadtime to manufacturers of
add-on (portable) child restraint systems to make necessary design
changes to conform to the new requirements.
The agency will respond to the remaining requests in the petitions
for reconsideration in another document that will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
DATES: The effective date (i.e., the date on which the text of the CFR
is changed) of the final rule published July 6, 1995 (60 FR 35126) and
corrected September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50477), remains January 3, 1996.
For manufacturers of built-in child restraint systems, the
compliance date for the amendments remains September 1, 1996.
However, for manufacturers of add-on child restraint systems, the
compliance date for the amendments made by those rules (i.e., the date
on which these manufacturers must begin complying with the amendments)
is changed to September 1, 1996.
Petitions for reconsideration of the rule must be received by
January 11, 1996.
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: For nonlegal issues: Dr. George
Mouchahoir, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards (telephone 202-366-
4919).
For legal issues: Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel
(202-366-2992). Both can be reached at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
This document delays until September 1, 1996, the date on which
manufacturers of add-on (portable) child
[[Page 63652]]
restraint systems must begin complying with the amendments made by a
final rule that was published Thursday, July 6, 1995 (60 FR 35126), and
corrected September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50477). The July 1995 final rule
amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child
Restraint Systems,'' by adding a greater array of sizes and weights of
test dummies for use in compliance tests. The rule, which completed a
substantial upgrade of the standard long envisioned by the agency, also
responded to the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 (sections 2500-2509 of
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (``ISTEA'')). That
Act directed NHTSA to initiate rulemaking on child seat safety. The
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the rule was published March
16, 1994 (59 FR 12225).
Current Requirements
Standard 213 applies to any device, except Type I (lap) or Type II
(lap/shoulder) seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or
aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children whose mass is 23
kilograms (kg) (50 pounds) or less. The standard evaluates the
performance of child restraint systems in dynamic tests under
conditions simulating a frontal crash of an average automobile at 48
kilometers per hour (kph) (30 miles per hour (mph)).
The dynamic tests are conducted using a test dummy. Currently,
Standard 213 (S7) specifies that a dummy representing a 6-month-old
child be used for testing a child restraint system that is recommended
by its manufacturer for use by children in a mass range that includes
children whose mass is 9 kg or less (weighing 20 pounds or less). That
dummy, which is not instrumented, is specified in subpart D of 49 CFR
part 572. A dummy whose mass is 15 kg (weighing 33 pounds),
representing a 3-year-old child, is used for testing a child restraint
system that is recommended for children whose mass is 9 kg or more
(weighing 20 or more pounds). This dummy is instrumented with
accelerometers for measuring accelerations in the head and chest during
impacts, and is specified in 49 CFR Part 572, subpart C.
The requirements to be met by a child restraint in the dynamic
testing include maintaining its structural integrity, retaining
portions of the dummy within specified excursion limits (limits on how
far specified portions of the body may move forward), and in the case
of the 3-year-old dummy, limiting the forces exerted on the head and
chest of the dummy in the crash. These requirements reduce the
likelihood that the child using a child seat will be injured by the
collapse or disintegration of the seat, by contact with the interior of
the vehicle, or by imposition of intolerable forces by the seat.
July 1995 Final Rule
The July 1995 final rule amended Standard 213 to add three dummies,
representing a newborn infant, 9-month-old and 6-year-old child, for
use in compliance testing under the standard. The rule removed the 6-
month-old child dummy currently used, since the need for it was
eliminated by the addition of the new dummies.
The additional dummies provide a better evaluation of the ability
of child restraint systems to restrain and protect the range of
children recommended for those systems. As a result of the rule, child
restraints must meet the performance requirements of the standard while
tested with dummies more representative of the range of children for
whom the restraints are recommended. As a result, the performance of
child restraints is more thoroughly evaluated. A dummy representing
children at the lower end of the weight ranges recommended for a
restraint evaluates the ability of the restraint to restrain its
occupant. In other words, it evaluates the ability of a restraint to
prevent a smaller child from slipping out of the restraint. A dummy at
the higher end approximates the heaviest load that the restraint will
have to bear in a crash and thus is particularly useful in evaluating
the structural integrity of the restraint.
The rule adopted the following provisions specifying which of the
new dummies NHTSA will use in the compliance testing of child restraint
systems:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the range of children recommended by
a child restraint's manufacturer The following dummy(ies)
includes any children in the following is(are) used in the compliance
range testing of that restraint
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birth--5 kg or less (Birth--11 lb or Newborn.
less).
More than 5 kg-10 kg (22 lb)............ Newborn.
9-month-old.
More than 10 kg-18 kg (40 lb)........... 9-month-old.*
3-yr-old.
More than 18 kg or 40 lb................ 6-yr-old.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This dummy is not to be used to test booster seats.
Compliance Dates
The rule was drafted to have one compliance date for add-on child
restraint systems, and another for built-in systems. The compliance
date for add-on child restraint systems was January 3, 1996 (which is
180 days after the publication date of the rule), and for built-in
systems, September 1, 1996.
Rationale for Different Dates
Different compliance dates were established due to NHTSA's belief,
at the time, that add-on restraint manufacturers did not need so much
time to comply with the amendments as did built-in restraint
manufacturers. In the apparent absence of comments objecting to the
proposed 180 day effective date, the agency concluded that
manufacturers of add-on systems could comply with the proposed period
of 180 days. In contrast, there were comments indicating that a 180-day
effective date would be insufficient for built-in restraint
manufacturers. In commenting on the NPRM, an individual built-in
restraint manufacturer (Ford) and a association of built-in restraint
manufacturers (American Automobile Manufacturers Association) requested
a September 1, 1996 compliance date for amending the standard with
regard to built-in systems. Ford stated that the proposed 180-day
period would not provide enough time for it to test all its built-in
systems to the adopted requirements and make any needed design changes.
Ford also said that 180 days is insufficient to enable it to modify the
labeling of its built-in restraints, or to change the vehicle owner's
guides of the vehicles equipped with built-in systems, in accordance
with the rule. Ford indicated that a September 1, 1996 compliance date
would better allow it to incorporate necessary changes in the vehicle
owner's manual, since the manuals are usually printed in June or July
of the model year. NHTSA concluded that a September 1, 1996 compliance
date for built-in restraints ``gives motor vehicle manufacturers
sufficient leadtime to evaluate their products and make any necessary
changes to them, and prepare the labels and owners manuals for the new
model vehicles without unnecessary burdens.'' 60 FR 35138.
Correction of Effective Date
As noted above, the agency drafted the rule so that the ``effective
date'' for add-on child restraint systems was January 3, 1996, and the
``effective date'' for built-in systems was September 1, 1996. This
wording did not conform to the drafting practices of the Federal
Register. Based on the language of 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (formerly
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), NHTSA has
traditionally used the term ``effective date'' to mean
[[Page 63653]]
the date on and after which any vehicle or item of equipment subject to
a rule must comply with the requirements of the rule. The Federal
Register uses different terminology. It calls this date the rule's
``compliance date,'' not its ``effective date.'' For Federal Register
purposes, the ``effective date'' of a rule is the date on which the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is amended to reflect the changes set
forth in the rule. Since the amendments of a rule appear in the CFR on
the ``effective date'' of the rule, amendments cannot vary in effective
date by subject matter, e.g., a rule cannot have one effective date for
add-on systems and another for built-in systems.
On September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50477), NHTSA corrected the error by
correcting the DATES section of the final rule to specify that the rule
is effective (as the Federal Register uses that term) on January 3,
1996, with two provisos. The provisos, relating to the compliance dates
of the rule, are as follows:
However, manufacturers of built-in child restraint systems may
comply with existing requirements for built-in systems (as of July
6, 1995) until September 1, 1996.
Manufacturers of add-on child restraint systems may comply with
existing requirements for add-on systems (as of July 6, 1995) until
January 3, 1996.
The correction conformed the wording of the DATES section to
Federal Register drafting practices. It did not affect the compliance
date of the amendments made by the rule. Thus, beginning January 3,
1996, each add-on restraint would have to meet the performance criteria
and labeling requirements specified in the standard when tested with
the test dummies specified by the rule, including, if appropriate for a
particular restraint, the newly-adopted dummies.
Petitions for Reconsideration of Compliance Date
Cosco Inc. and Gerry Baby Products Company, two manufacturers of
add-on child restraint systems, petitioned for reconsideration of the
January 3, 1996 compliance date for add-on restraints. Both
manufacturers requested NHTSA to change the date to September 1, 1996,
to make the compliance date the same as that for built-in restraint
manufacturers.
In support of its petition, Cosco said it needs a leadtime longer
than 180 days to test its products and make needed design and tooling
changes. Cosco disagreed with NHTSA's statement in the final rule that
``No comment was received on leadtime for add-on restraints.'' (60 FR
at 35137) Cosco said it had commented on the issue, and quoted a
statement in its comment which stated: ``Whatever changes are made to
the standard, Cosco reminds NHTSA that manufacturers need enough time
to deplete inventories of printed materials (at least 6 months) or
develop complying designs (up to 2 years).'' In its petition, Cosco
said that:
While this two year time period may be compressed to some
degree, certain critical elements of the design, development,
tooling and testing of a new add-on child restraint cannot be
accelerated. For instance, the tooling time for the mold for an add-
on child restraint shell is approximately six months. This does not
include time for fine tuning the tool after it is completed and for
testing the first production adequately to ensure that safety
guidelines and compliance with FMVSS 213 are met. * * *
Cosco believed there is no reason to have a compliance date for
add-on systems that differed from that for built-in systems. It stated:
The discussion in the final rule regarding Ford's comments
essentially reflects the same concerns that Cosco raised in response
to the NPRM. * * * This arbitrary distinction will have an
unnecessary, negative impact on add-on restraint manufacturers and
should be amended as requested.
Gerry Baby Products raised similar concerns in its petition. Gerry
said that 180 days does not provide enough time for it to sufficiently
test its products to the new requirements and implement any necessary
design changes. Gerry also stated:
This short phase-in time period may result in Gerry Baby and
other child restraint manufacturers pulling a significant percentage
of shield type booster seats (for which head excursion limits may be
an issue) from the market. Thus, the end result of the 180-day
effective date could be a significant time period in which the
retail market would have minimal, if any, shield-type booster seats
available. Consumers with Type I seat belt systems in the rear seats
of their vehicles would thus probably have no child restraints
available to restrain their 40 to 60 pound children.
Gerry requested that the compliance date for add-on restraints and
built-in restraints be the same, September 1, 1996.
Agency Decision
NHTSA has reviewed the petitions and has decided that, for add-on
systems, the compliance date for the July rule should be changed to
September 1, 1996. NHTSA adopted a 180-day compliance date, as
proposed, for the rule for add-on systems because a longer leadtime did
not seem necessary. In its petition for reconsideration, Cosco and
Gerry have provided information explaining why they believe that the
rule's original compliance date ``is not practicable, is unreasonable,
or is not in the public interest.'' 49 CFR 553.35. The agency agrees
that, similar to built-in restraint manufacturers, manufacturers of
add-on systems need sufficient time to evaluate their products and make
any necessary changes to them. As noted by Gerry, shield boosters, in
particular, will likely need to be redesigned to meet Standard 213's
head excursion requirement when tested with the 6-year-old dummy.
Shield boosters, used for older children who have outgrown a
convertible or toddler seat, enables a Type I (lap only) vehicle belt
to more properly fit the child by preventing the belt from riding up
across the child's stomach.
NHTSA is therefore extending the compliance date for add-on systems
to ensure that adequate time is provided add-on restraint manufacturers
to test their seats and implement necessary design changes. This will
also ensure the continued availability of shield booster seats. The
compliance date of the July 1995 final rule, as corrected September 29,
1995, is delayed to September 1, 1996 for add-on restraints.
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
impacts of this rulemaking action and has determined that this action
is not ``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA has further
determined that the effects of this rulemaking are so minimal that
preparation of a full preliminary regulatory evaluation is not
warranted. The agency believes that manufacturers will be minimally
affected by this rulemaking because it only extends the compliance date
of the July 6, 1995 final rule, which amended Standard 213. There will
be no additional costs associated with this final rule.
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. Since this document simply extends the compliance date of a
previously-issued rule, no costs are associated with it. Accordingly,
the agency has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.
[[Page 63654]]
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and 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 section 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.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on December 7, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-30233 Filed 12-7-95; 2:11 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P