[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28423-28427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13772]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-09; Notice 45]
RIN 2127-AF46
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule, and a companion rule issued by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), address the use of child harnesses and backless
child restraints in aircraft. This document amends a provision in
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint
Systems,'' that permits those restraints to be certified for use in
both motor vehicles and aircraft.
Under the current FAA regulations, aircraft-certified child
restraints may be used on aircraft. However, because testing has raised
FAA's concerns about the safety of using harnesses and backless child
restraint systems on the types of seats found in aircraft, FAA is
publishing a rule in today's Federal Register that prohibits the use of
booster seats, and vest- and harness-type child restraint systems on
aircraft during take off, landing and movement on the surface, even if
these restraints are certified for aircraft use.
In view of the FAA's determination that harnesses and booster seats
are unsuitable for use during significant portions of a flight, the
agency believes continuing to permit the certification of those
restraints for aircraft use would be inconsistent and likely confusing
to the public. Accordingly, this rule no longer permits those
restraints to be certified for aircraft use, and instead requires
manufacturers to label these restraints as not certified for use in
aircraft.
DATES: This rule is effective on September 3, 1996.
Petitions for reconsideration of the rule must be received by July
19, 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 SW.,
Washington, D.C., 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Dr. George
Mouchahoir, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards (telephone 202-366-4919,
fax 202-366-4329). For legal issues: Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of the
Chief Counsel (telephone 202-366-2992, fax 202-366-3820). Both can be
reached at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C., 20590. For information on FAA's
rule, contact Ms. Donell Pollard (AFS-203), Air Transportation
Division, Flight Standards Service (telephone 202-267-3735), Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C.,
20591.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document amends the provision in
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint
Systems,'' that permits child restraint systems to be certified for use
in both motor vehicles and aircraft. This rule complements an FAA rule,
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, that withdraws
approval for the use of booster seats and vest- and harness-type child
restraint systems on aircraft, and prohibits airlines from permitting a
child to be restrained in such a restraint during take off, landing,
and movement on the surface, even if the restraint is certified for
aircraft use. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on which this
NHTSA rule is based was published at 60 FR 30696 (June 9, 1995).
Harnesses and booster seats are types of child restraint systems
regulated by Standard 213. A harness typically consists of a vest or a
series of straps that form a vest-like garment, that attaches at the
back of the harness to a vehicle seat's lap belt. Harnesses are
generally intended for children who weigh from 25 to 50 pounds. Some
require the use of a tether strap to supplement the lap belt. The
restraint that the FAA refers to as a ``booster seat'' is a ``backless
child restraint system'' under Standard 213. (See definitions of
``booster seat'' and ``backless child restraint system'' in S4 of FMVSS
213.) A ``backless child restraint system'' is one of two types of
booster seat.1 A backless child restraint has a structural element
(typically a shield) designed to restrain forward motion of the child's
torso in a frontal crash. Backless child restraint systems are
generally intended for children weighing from 30 to 60 pounds. Backless
child restraint systems are also known as ``backless booster seats'' or
``shield-type'' booster seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The other type of booster seat is the ``belt positioning
seat,'' which is intended for use by children weighing from 30 to 60
pounds, and designed for use with a lap/shoulder belt system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
Standard 213 permits manufacturers to certify their restraints
2 for aircraft use if they are certified for use in motor vehicles
and meet an additional requirement, an inversion test. The provisions
permitting such certification were added to the standard in 1984 (49 FR
34357; August 30, 1984), partly in response to suggestions of the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that DOT simplify its
standards for the performance of child restraints on aircraft by
combining all technical requirements into a single standard (NTSB
Safety Recommendations A-83-1, February 24, 1983). Prior to the
amendment, FAA had its own child restraint standard, Technical Standard
Order C100 (TSO C100). TSO C100 and FMVSS 213 had different performance
requirements, methods of certification and testing procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ``belt positioning'' booster seat is not eligible for
such certification. FMVSS No. 213 does not permit these restraints
to be certified for aircraft use because aircraft passenger seats
typically lack shoulder belts. See amendment of FMVSS 213 to permit
manufacture of belt-positioning child seats (59 FR 37167; July 21,
1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1984 rulemaking, NHTSA and FAA concluded that the DOT child
restraint requirements should be consolidated in FMVSS 213 and that a
TSO C100 inversion test was the only performance requirement from the
FAA standard that needed to be incorporated into FMVSS 213. In the
inversion test, the combination of a child restraint, test dummy and
aircraft passenger seat is rotated forward at a specified speed to an
inverted position and held there, and later rotated sideways at the
same speed and held. During the test, the child restraint must not fall
out of the aircraft safety belt and the test dummy must not fall out of
the child restraint.
Prior to the 1984 rulemaking, a manufacturer wishing to designate a
child restraint model as suitable for use in aircraft had to submit
information to FAA to obtain its approval of the model. As a result of
this pre-1984 approval process, there was a disparity between the
number of child restraints available
[[Page 28424]]
for use in motor vehicles and the number available for use in aircraft.
In 1984, approximately 28 models of child restraints were produced
under FMVSS 213 for use in motor vehicles. The child restraint
manufacturers obtained TSO authorizations for only five of the 28
models, or only 16 percent of the total production of child restraints.
The lack of FAA approval of most motor vehicle child restraints for
use in aircraft aroused several safety concerns. One was that some
families traveling by air were discouraged from taking unapproved child
restraints with them and thus did not have them available for use at
their destination to protect their children while the family was
driving. The other concern was that those families who nevertheless
took their unapproved child restraints on trips had to stow the
restraints in the aircraft cargo compartment, and thus were not able to
use them to protect their children during the flight.
The effect of the 1984 rulemaking was to speed certification of
child restraints for use in aircraft, and thereby increase the
availability of aircraft-certified child restraints. Since then,
manufacturers have been able, under FMVSS 213, to certify their child
restraints for aircraft use by ensuring that they pass all of the
standard's motor vehicle requirements and the inversion test. As a
result, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of child
restraints certified for use in aircraft.
FAA complemented NHTSA's rulemaking by amending its Federal
Aviation Regulations (FARs)(14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125 and 135) to
provide for the in-flight use of aircraft-certified child restraints.
The amendments required the air carriers to allow the use of any child
restraint having a label indicating that it is certified to FMVSS 213,
manufactured under the standards of the United Nations, or approved by
a foreign government, as long as the restraint can be secured to a
forward-facing passenger seat. An infant or child who is accompanied by
a parent, guardian, or properly designated attendant and who is
properly placed in a device that meets the labeling requirements of the
FARs and that, in turn, is properly secured in an approved aircraft
seat using the safety belt, has been considered by FAA to comply with
its regulations requiring each person to occupy an approved seat during
takeoff and landing.
There are currently many different types of child restraint systems
that are certified as complying with FMVSS 213's motor vehicle and
aircraft requirements, and thus permitted by FAA for use on aircraft.
In addition to harnesses and shield boosters, these systems included
``infant seats,'' which position an infant so that the baby faces
toward the rear of the motor vehicle or aircraft; and ``convertible''
child seats, which convert so that they can be used rear-facing with
infants and forward-facing with toddlers. In addition, there are
restraint systems that are certified for use in airplanes by foreign
countries.
FAA Withdrawal of Approval
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, FAA is withdrawing approval
for the use of booster seats and vest- and harness-type child restraint
systems on aircraft, and prohibiting airlines from permitting a child
to be restrained in such a restraint during take off, landing, and
movement on the surface. The FAA is also emphasizing the existing
prohibition in all aircraft against the use of lap held child
restraints, such as belly belts.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ 3\ Belly belts restrain a small child on the lap of an adult
and consist of a short loop of webbing with buckle hardware on the
ends. The belt is buckled around the child's abdomen and is secured
to the adult's safety belt by routing the adult's safety belt
through a small loop of webbing sewn on the belly belt. Belly belts
are certified for airplane use by the Civil Aviation Authority of
the United Kingdom. However, belly belts cannot meet the performance
requirements of FMVSS 213 and therefore have not been certified for
use in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA's action responds to research by its Civil Aeromedical
Institute (CAMI). The CAMI research is discussed in a report entitled,
``The Performance of Child Restraint Devices in Transport Airplane
Passenger Seats,'' a copy of which has been placed in NHTSA rulemaking
docket 74-09, notice 41. (Persons wishing to obtain a copy of the
report should contact FAA at the address given in the ``For Further
Information'' section at the beginning of this final rule document.)
CAMI dynamically tested six types of restraining devices: child
harnesses, booster seats, rear-facing infant seats, convertible child
restraint systems, airplane seat lap belts, and belly belts. The first
four devices were evaluated for their ability to fit and adjust to an
airplane passenger seat and lap belt. The lap belt was evaluated for
its ability to secure test dummies representative of children two and
three years old. Fit and adjustment was not considered an issue for the
installation of the belly belt. All of the devices were evaluated for
their performance in aircraft seats with and without ``breakover'' seat
backs (a breakover feature allows the seat back to rotate forward
easily when impacted by an occupant from behind). They were also
evaluated, using anthropomorphic test dummies representing children,
for their ability to limit occupant head excursion, head and chest
accelerations and abdominal forces. In addition, the test program
evaluated the effect that the impact load of an ``aft row occupant''
had on the performance of a child restraint located in an aircraft seat
immediately in front of the aft row occupant. The aft row occupant
impact load was generated in tests called ``double row tests,'' using
an adult test dummy placed in the aft row seat.
Booster Seat Tests
CAMI tested four models of shield-type booster seats in six dynamic
tests, three of which involved single row tests, and the other three,
double row tests. With regard to fit and adjustment of the booster
seats to the airplane seat chosen for testing purposes, CAMI found that
three had fit and adjustment problems. One booster seat had problems
fitting an airplane seat because of the limited width between arm rests
on the passenger seat. This may have occurred because of the difference
in width between the representative aircraft seat (about 20 inches
wide) used in FMVSS 213 and the aircraft seat (17.25 inches wide) used
in the CAMI testing. Two booster seats had incompatibility problems
between the buckle/webbing path molded in the front shield and the
airplane web path and buckle position of the lap belt on the airplane
passenger seat used by CAMI. In fact, the webbing could not be
installed over the front shield in accordance with the positioning
instruction of the booster seats' manufacturers. CAMI also found that
one of the four booster seats failed structurally, and two of the
others allowed forward head excursion in excess of the 32-inch distance
permitted by FMVSS 213.
CAMI also found a problem with the loads that the child dummies
restrained in the tested booster seats experienced when the boosters
were on a seat with a breakover seat back and exposed to loads from the
aft row occupant. Its tests showed that loads from an aft row adult
occupant resulted in an increase in abdominal loading of the dummy in a
booster seat, as compared to the abdominal loading of a dummy in an
aircraft lap belt with an adult aft-row occupant. The CAMI study states
that, when placed in a seat with a breakover seat back, the booster
seat encounters problems because:
With no back shell, the typical booster seat does not provide
protection from the forces transmitted by the airplane seat back
during horizontal impact conditions. Traditionally, restraint
systems in airplanes have been designed to avoid loads transmitted
to the soft tissues of the abdomen. A child
[[Page 28425]]
restrained in a booster seat may be forced against the rigid shield
due to the seat back breakover action. For the intended size of
children in booster seats, the load path of these breakover forces
may include the abdominal region.
It is to be noted that CAMI also found that the abdominal loads on
a child dummy placed in a shield-type booster seat secured to an
airplane seat with a locked seat back were higher than on a child dummy
secured in a typical airplane seat lap belt with a locked seat back.
The FAA recognized, however, that there are no accepted criteria to
assess the relationship between differences in measured levels of
abdominal loadings and any resulting risk of abdominal injury, and the
type and severity of such injury.
Harness Tests
CAMI tested one type of harness restraint. The restraint consisted
of a torso vest with straps over the shoulders and around the waist,
and a crotch strap. The shoulder and abdomen straps were attached to a
rectangular metal plate on the back of the restraint. The airplane lap
belts were routed through a loop of webbing attached to the metal back
plate on the restraint.
The restraint was tested with a three-year-old test dummy in two
single row tests. CAMI found incompatibility problems between the
harness and the airplane seat lap belts:
With the lap belts adjusted to the minimum length, the [harness]
could be moved forward approximately 7 inches before tension was
developed in the belts. This was considered unsatisfactory for
testing.
CAMI also found grossly excessive excursion of the child
anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) restrained in the harness:
The ATD moved forward and over the front edge of the seat
cushion and proceeded to submarine toward the floor. Elasticity in
the webbing of the harness and the lap belts then heaved the ATD
rearward. The force pulling the ATD back into the seat appeared to
be applied by the Gz [crotch] strap directly through the pubic
symphysis of the pelvic bone.
Based on this finding, CAMI concluded that a harness performs
poorly in protecting the child occupant.
Proposal and Comments
Based on these test results, the FAA proposed to withdraw approval
for the use of harnesses and booster seats on aircraft. 60 FR 30690,
June 9, 1995. At the same time, NHTSA issued an NPRM to amend FMVSS 213
to require manufacturers to label harnesses and backless booster seats
as not for aircraft use. The standard already requires that belt-
positioning booster seats be so labeled. The agency issued the proposal
on the basis that, in view of the FAA's determination that harnesses
and booster seats are unsuitable for use during significant portions of
a flight, continuing to permit the certification of those restraints
for aircraft use would be inconsistent and likely confusing to the
public.
NHTSA received one comment on its rulemaking proposal. The
commenter was the Air Transport Association of America (ATA),
representing its U.S. passenger carrying airline members. The ATA
comment responded to both the NHTSA and FAA proposals. FAA received
nine other comments on its proposal.
With regard to ATA's comment on the agencies' proposals, except as
noted below, ATA focused mainly on issues relating to the proposed FAA
provisions for implementing the contemplated ban. The commenter
particularly directed its comments toward what ATA believed were
potential difficulties the airlines (``carriers'') may experience in
enforcing it. ATA believed carriers should not be placed in the role of
``policing compliance'' with the proposed requirements, suggesting
instead ``a more informational role.'' ATA was concerned that some
passengers might insist on using a banned restraint, and might be
confused by the fact that their restraint might be certified for
aircraft use. (NHTSA's rule will affect restraints that are
manufactured on or after the effective date of the rule. Restraints
that were manufactured before the effective date and that were
certified for aircraft use bear a label that the restraint is so
certified.) ATA stated that,
It has been the practice of several airlines that when
confronted with an appropriately labeled device that is not actually
approved for use (e.g., belly belts) to advise the passenger of that
fact and to attempt to discourage the use of the device. For the
most part, these efforts are successful. In the unusual case,
however, where a passenger insists upon the use of the device (often
citing the ``appropriate label'' as allowing this use) the practice
is to avoid confrontation and permit the use if that is the only
remaining alternative. In light of the new increasing numbers of
devices with regard to which this type of experience is to be
expected, the rule obviously must take into account the
practicalities of this real world experience and provide for this
type of situation without threat of penalty to the carrier.
(Emphasis in text.)
For FAA's response to this and other comments from the ATA on
requirements proposed by FAA, readers should refer to the FAA final
rule (published concurrently with this rule, in today's Federal
Register). That document also discusses FAA's responses to the other
nine comments on its NPRM, including those from industry groups,
aviation authorities, air carriers and child restraint manufacturers.
ATA's comment was pertinent to NHTSA in two respects. First, it
provides support for NHTSA's rulemaking, in that it indicates that
confusion is not only likely, but has in fact resulted from a
discrepancy between a manufacturer's assertion about the suitability of
a restraint for aircraft and the FAA's determination that it is not. By
preventing manufacturers from labeling booster seats and harnesses as
appropriate for aircraft use, NHTSA's rule will reduce the potential
for confusion to the extent possible.
In addition, ATA also stated that it believed that ``before final
action is taken on this rulemaking,'' FAA and NHTSA must explain how
this rulemaking relates to a ``larger issue.'' While ATA was unclear
defining the ``larger issue,'' it appears that ATA is concerned about
possible fit and adjustment problems between the airplane seat and
restraint systems that can continue to be certified for and used in
aircraft, in the aftermath of today's rule. For example, the CAMI
report found that some forward facing convertible restraints could not
be secured satisfactorily in the airplane passenger seat used for
testing purposes.
FAA and NHTSA believe this issue was addressed in the NPRMs. As
discussed there, in view of the problems revealed by the CAMI testing,
NHTSA and FAA will consider a separate rulemaking to assess the need to
improve FMVSS 213's requirements for aircraft-certified child
restraints other than harnesses and booster seats. The agencies are
developing possible requirements and procedures that could improve the
assessment of the performance of child restraint systems in the
aircraft environment. Among other issues, the agencies will consider
whether the seat assembly used under FMVSS 213 in testing child
restraints for aircraft use sufficiently represents an aircraft
passenger seat.4 The agencies are proceeding with this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Child restraints certified as complying with FMVSS 213's
aircraft requirements are currently tested on a ``representative
aircraft passenger seat'' (S7.3 of FMVSS 213). FMVSS 213 also
specifies that FAA approved aircraft safety belts are used to test
child restraints that are certified to the aircraft requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28426]]
Other Issues
In undertaking the current rulemaking, NHTSA recognized that a rule
restricting the use of child restraints in aircraft could affect the
use of the restraints in motor vehicles. In the 1984 rulemaking that
allowed child restraints to be certified for use in motor vehicles and
aircraft, NHTSA recognized that parents might not use child restraints
to transport their children in a vehicle to and from the airport if the
child restraint could not be used on the aircraft. The data indicated
that child safety was not a critical issue for aircraft in terms of the
number of child deaths or injuries, but that it was a large problem for
motor vehicles. Many State laws that require the use of child seats in
motor vehicles do not cover all the ages of children that might use
booster seats. NHTSA was concerned that, if booster seats may not be
used on aircraft, and if parents are not willing to stow them with
their luggage, there is a possibility that the restraints could be left
home altogether and thus not used to restrain a child in the vehicle.
It was suggested that the number of child injuries in motor vehicle
accidents might increase because of this non-use.
In issuing the NPRM, NHTSA reached a tentative conclusion that
restricting the use of booster seats and harnesses on aircraft would
not adversely affect motor vehicle safety by increasing the numbers of
unrestrained children in vehicles. While NHTSA requested comments on
how it should assess this issue, no comment was received. The agency
has decided to proceed with this rulemaking in view of the lack of
information indicating that the rulemaking will reduce the use of child
restraints during the ground portion of a trip. However, the agencies
will monitor the situation for a possible degradation of motor vehicle
safety.
After considering ATA's comment on the rulemaking and other
pertinent information, NHTSA has decided to adopt the requirements
proposed in the NPRM, without change. This amendment to Standard 213
will remove the possibility that a restraint could be certified for
aircraft use despite the fact the FAA has prohibited such use of that
restraint. This amendment reduces the likelihood of confusion and
misunderstanding on the part of consumers, and makes the FAA and NHTSA
requirements consistent.
However, for clarification purposes, NHTSA emphasizes the following
points about the use and performance of child restraints. First, there
are significant differences between the seating environment of motor
vehicles and that of aircraft. Because of those differences, the
problems encountered with child restraint use in aircraft are not
encountered with child restraint use in motor vehicles. Therefore,
notwithstanding this rule, the use of harnesses and booster seats in
motor vehicles continues to be important for child safety.
The problems reported by CAMI, i.e., the combined effects of
aircraft seatback breakover designs and aft occupant impacts, are not
encountered in motor vehicles. The seat back in a motor vehicle is
designed to remain fixed in a crash and not ``breakover'' in the manner
of an airplane seat. Also, a vehicle seat containing a child restraint
is less likely to be impacted from the rear by an adult than is an
aircraft seat containing a child restraint. There are several reasons
for this. First, child restraints are recommended for use in the rear
instead of front vehicle seating positions. Thus, if a child restraint
is installed as recommended, there will not, in most cases, be any
passenger rearward of the child restraint who could impact and load the
seat containing the child restraint in the event of a frontal crash.
Exceptions would be in vehicles, such as vans and some station wagons,
which have three rows of seats. Second, if there were a passenger
seated behind the seat containing a child restraint, and that person
were sitting in an outboard seating position, the person most likely
would have a lap/shoulder belt system available for use. Most aircraft
lack shoulder belts. If the vehicle passenger were restrained by that
belt system, the person would not load the seat with the child
restraint in the manner observed in the CAMI study. Third, given the
number of persons typically carried in a motor vehicle, it is unlikely
there would be an adult seated behind a child in a child restraint,
regardless of the number or pattern of seats in the vehicle.
Further, harnesses and other child restraints are tested under
FMVSS 213 on a seat assembly that is representative of a motor vehicle
seat, and that is equipped with a safety belt representative of the lap
belt in the center rear seating position. In its compliance testing,
the agency has not found a problem between the vehicle lap belt and a
child harness such as that found by CAMI between an airplane lap belt
and a harness. In addition, NHTSA has not found in its compliance
testing the type of fit and adjustment problems between booster seats
and the vehicle seats that CAMI found between booster seats and the
aircraft seats.
Booster seats could fit better on motor vehicles than aircraft in
part because of the design of the belt restraints with which the
boosters are attached to the automobile. The position of the buckle for
an aircraft seat belt assembly is very different from that of a buckle
for a vehicle seat belt assembly. An aircraft seat belt assembly is
designed so that when it is buckled, the buckle is located midway
between the anchorages, in front of the user's abdomen. A motor vehicle
lap/shoulder belt or lap-only belt is designed so that the buckle is
located to the side of the user's torso, near the hip, when the belt is
buckled.
Another reason for believing that the problems reported by CAMI are
not indicative of the performance of child restraints in motor vehicles
is the difference between the crash pulse used by CAMI and the crash
pulse used in FMVSS 213 testing. In its testing of head excursion, head
and chest acceleration and abdominal forces, CAMI used a crash pulse
appropriate for aircraft. FMVSS 213 testing, by contrast, involves the
use of a motor vehicle crash pulse.
Compliance Date
The compliance date for this rule is in 90 days. There is good
cause for this short compliance date. It is the same as that of FAA's
rule that withdraws approval of boosters and harnesses for use on
aircraft. The effective date for the agencies' rules should be
identical since the two rulemaking actions complement each other. FAA
seeks to restrict the use of boosters and harnesses on aircraft as
expeditiously as possible to address what that agency has concluded to
be a possible safety problem. NHTSA's rule minimizes the potential for
confusion and misunderstanding on the part of consumers, by preventing
manufacturers from certifying boosters and harnesses for aircraft use
when in fact FAA does not approve of those restraints for such use.
Given the above, a 90-day effective date is in the public interest.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has evaluated the impacts of this rule and has determined
that it is significant within the meaning of the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The rulemaking
action is significant because of the substantial public interest in
issues involving child seats on aircraft. Further, this rule is a
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
[[Page 28427]]
While this action is significant because of the public interest
associated with it, NHTSA concludes that this rule will have minimal
impacts. In 1991, there were an estimated 1,200,000 booster seats
produced. The consumer cost of a label is estimated to be $0.09 to
$0.17, and total annual costs of a separate label range from $108,000
to $204,000.
However, adding a sentence to the existing label, most likely the
course of action taken in response to this rulemaking, would cost much
less. This cost might be $0.01 per label, resulting in a total annual
cost of $12,000. Fewer harnesses are produced than booster seats. The
label on a harness is typically cloth, and sewn on to the restraint.
Assuming that 10,000 to 50,000 harnesses are produced annually, the
cost of a label will probably be over $1.00. However, even with this
cost, the cost of the labeling requirement is minimal. Moreover, there
is a possible economic benefit of this rule. Since booster seats and
harnesses will no longer be permitted to be certified for aircraft,
there will be no need to perform the inversion test. Thus, testing
costs to the child restraint manufacturer will be slightly reduced.
Further, the agency believes sales of booster seats and harnesses
will be minimally affected, if at all, by the prohibition against their
certification for aircraft use. NHTSA believes almost all consumers
decide to purchase a child restraint based on their intent to use the
restraint in a motor vehicle, not in aircraft.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rule under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. For the reasons noted above and below, I hereby
certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The agency knows of 13
manufacturers of child restraints (not counting vehicle manufacturers
that produce and install built-in restraints), 7 of which are
considered to be small businesses (including Kolcraft, which with an
estimated 500 employees, is on the borderline of being a small
business). This number does not constitute a substantial number of
small entities. Regardless of this number, NHTSA does not believe this
rule will have a significant impact on small businesses. As noted
above, this rulemaking will have a minimal effect on labeling costs and
no effect on child restraint sales.
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 will 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 will 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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 571 as
set forth below.
PART 571--[AMENDED]
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 S5.5.2(n) to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213; Child restraint systems.
* * * * *
S5.5.2 * * *
(n) Child restraint systems, other than belt-positioning seats,
harnesses and backless child restraint systems, may be certified as
complying with the provisions of S8. Child restraints that are so
certified shall be labeled with the statement ``This Restraint is
Certified for Use in Motor Vehicles and Aircraft.'' Belt-positioning
seats, harnesses and backless child restraint systems shall be labeled
with the statement ``This Restraint is Not Certified for Use in
Aircraft.'' The statement required by this paragraph shall be in red
lettering and shall be placed after the certification statement
required by S5.5.2(e).
* * * * *
Issued on May 20, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-13772 Filed 6-03-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P