[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 156 (Friday, August 13, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44164-44171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20950]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. 99-5100]
RIN 2127-AG49


Consumer Information Regulations; Seat Belt Positioners

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Grant of petition for rulemaking; notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend our consumer information 
regulations to require seat belt positioners to be labeled as not 
suitable for children of a certain age, e.g., under 6 years old, or a 
certain height. Seat belt positioners alter the positioning of vehicle 
lap and shoulder belts on children. We found in tests of some of the 
devices that they inadequately restrained a 3-year-old child dummy and 
reduced the performance of vehicle belts restraining a 6-year-old child 
dummy. We are also requesting information on the alternative of 
establishing a minimum performance standard for seat belt positioners. 
We have issued this document in response to a petition for rulemaking 
from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than October 12, 1999.

ADDRESSES: You should mention the docket number of this document in 
your comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20590.
    You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the 
Docket from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For non-legal issues, you may call Mike Huntley of the NHTSA Office 
of Crashworthiness Standards, at 202-366-0029.
    For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita of the NHTSA Office 
of Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC, 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

    This document grants a petition for rulemaking from the American 
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) requesting that NHTSA amend Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems'' (49 CFR 
571.213) (Standard 213), to include performance requirements applicable 
to aftermarket, add-on seat belt positioners. These devices alter the 
positioning of vehicle lap and shoulder belts. The statements on the 
packaging for some of these devices indicate that they are suitable for 
improving the fit of the belts on children, which in some cases 
includes 3- to 6-year-olds, and small adults.
    The agency dynamically tested three types of belt positioning 
devices in 1994, using 3-year-old and 6-year-old dummies. We tested the 
dummies by restraining them in lap/shoulder belts

[[Page 44165]]

with, and without, the devices. When we compared the results, we found 
that in many of the tests with the 3-year-old dummy, the positioners 
reduced belt performance and contributed toward excessive head injury 
criterion (HIC) measurements (HICs were greater than 1000). The devices 
generally performed adequately with the 6-year-old dummy, in that the 
performance criteria of our child restraint standard were not exceeded, 
although there was some reduction in the performance of the vehicle 
belt system restraining the dummy.
    In this document, we propose to amend our consumer information 
regulations (49 CFR Part 575) to require seat belt positioners to be 
labeled as not suitable for children of a certain age, e.g., 6 years, 
and younger. We also request information on the alternative, or 
additional, approach of establishing a minimum performance standard for 
seat belt positioners. Further, we also seek information on whether 
there is a real-world safety problem of sufficient magnitude to merit 
the agency's taking action.

Petition for Rulemaking

    On January 31, 1996, AAP petitioned NHTSA to amend Standard 213, 
``Child Restraint Systems,'' to regulate aftermarket seat belt 
positioners. Aftermarket seat belt positioners, which are designed to 
improve the fit of the lap and shoulder belt system on a child or small 
adult, are not currently subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard. Standard 213 applies to ``any device except Type I or Type II 
seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to 
restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less.'' 
(S4) A seat belt positioner that does not restrain, seat or position 
children is not a device regulated by Standard 213. Safety Standard No. 
208, ``Occupant Crash Protection'' (49 CFR 571.208) and Standard 210 
(571.210), ``Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages,'' apply to new, completed 
vehicles. Standard 209 (571.209), ``Seat Belt Assemblies,'' applies to 
new seat belt assemblies. Because an aftermarket seat belt positioner 
is not installed as part of a completed vehicle or a seat belt 
assembly, Standards 208, 209 and 210 do not apply.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While seat belt positioners are not subject to the 
standards, they are items of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, 
their manufacturers are subject to the requirements in 49 U.S.C. 
30119 and 30120 concerning the recall and remedy of products with 
safety related defects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAP states that, because seat belt positioners are generally 
marketed as child occupant protection devices, the products should be 
subject to the same scrutiny and testing that child restraint systems 
undergo. AAP's concern is that some seat belt positioners ``appear to 
interfere with proper lap and shoulder harness fit by positioning the 
lap belt too high on the abdomen, the shoulder harness too low across 
the shoulder, and by allowing too much slack in the shoulder harness.'' 
Accordingly, AAP believes that the devices should be subject to a 
safety standard so that they are required to meet a minimum level of 
performance. AAP believes that this would be especially appropriate 
because, AAP contends, some parents decide to have their older children 
sit directly on the vehicle seat and use a combination of vehicle seat 
belts and seat belt positioners instead of having those children sit in 
booster seats certified to Standard 213. (As explained below, NHTSA 
recommends that children weighing over 40 pounds (lb) be restrained in 
a booster seat until they are tall enough so that they can, without the 
aid of a booster seat: (1) Wear the shoulder belt comfortably across 
their shoulder, and secure the lap belt across their pelvis, and (2) 
bend their legs over the front of the seat when their backs are against 
the vehicle seat back.)

NHTSA's Previous Consideration of Seat Belt Positioners

    We previously raised the question of whether seat belt positioners 
should be regulated by Standard 213 several years ago. In a rulemaking 
proceeding initiated in response to the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 
(sections 2500-2509 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act), we issued an NPRM seeking comment on, among other issues, the 
question of whether the standard should be applied to those devices, 
and if so, what requirements would be appropriate. We later issued a 
final rule amending Standard 213 in areas unrelated to seat belt 
positioners, but in that rule we discussed the public comments on this 
issue and announced our decision (60 FR 35126; July 6, 1995) not to 
propose applying the standard to these devices:

    Six commenters responded to this issue. All believed the devices 
need to be subjected to safety standards to ensure that they provide 
occupants with proper safety protection. UM-CPP [University of 
Michigan Child Protection Program] stated that the primary problem 
with these devices is that there are ``no formal test procedures and 
criteria for determining whether a given deflector is effective and/
or better than nothing for certain vehicle belt/occupant 
combinations.'' IIHS [Insurance Institute for Highway Safety] 
strongly urged that these restraint devices to improve belt fit, be 
subject to Standard 213, as are booster seats. It said these devices 
are targeted to those children who have outgrown toddler seats but 
are too small to be appropriately restrained by adult seatbelts. 
Redlog, a manufacturer of belt adjustment devices, recommended that 
these devices be included in the definition of child restraints in 
FMVSS No. 213. Redlog recommended creating a sub-category within the 
existing definition of child restraints to accommodate these 
devices. It concluded by saying that dynamic crash testing and 
labeling for appropriate usage are essential requirements. Advocates 
[Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety] expressed its concern with 
the safety of these devices and said the agency has an obligation to 
test them to determine if they interfere with the safety performance 
of the restraint system. Safety BeltSafe said that ``standards are 
essential for the new category of product which purports to 
reconfigure the shoulder lap belt to respond to the differing seated 
heights of passengers and drivers in vehicles.'' It, however, said 
at this time, it does not recommend use of such products if the 
passenger is able to use a belt-positioning booster. CompUTence said 
that FMVSS 213 should address all child and small adult safety 
devices relating to occupant restraint and that, currently, these 
devices are sold without knowledge of whether they provide the 
safety claimed by their manufacturers.
    While commenters supported regulating the aftermarket devices, 
the agency is not prepared to undertake rulemaking at this time. 
NHTSA needs to better assess the safety benefits of such rulemaking, 
and the feasibility of a test procedure and practicability of 
performance requirements. (60 FR at 35137)

Agency Review of Petition

    In reviewing AAP's petition, we were guided by a number of 
considerations. First, we believe that children's crash protection will 
be maximized if parents follow the recommendations we developed on what 
type of restraint should be used for children of particular sizes. One 
question for us was whether the positioners themselves, or the 
statements in their marketing and packaging, might encourage parents to 
use child restraints in a manner inconsistent with those 
recommendations. Second, we believe that use of belt positioners must 
not degrade the safety of children whose child restraint usage is 
consistent with the recommendations.

NHTSA Recommendations Regarding Child Restraint Usage

    Our usage recommendations, which were published in November 1997 as 
part of an information brochure concerning on-off switches for air 
bags, are as follows:

[[Page 44166]]



                 What Restraint Is Right For Your Child?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Proper type of restraint (Put
      Weight or size of your child          your child in back seat, if
                                                     possible)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children less than 20 pounds,* or less    Rear-facing infant seat
 than 1 year.                              (secured to the vehicle by
                                           the seat belts).
Children from about 20 to 40 pounds* and  Forward-facing child seat
 at least 1 year.                          (secured to the vehicle by
                                           the seat belts).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children more than 40 pounds*...........  Booster seat, plus both
                                           portions of a lap/shoulder
                                           belt (except only the lap
                                           portion is used with some
                                           booster seats equipped with
                                           front shield).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children who meet both criteria below:    Both portions of a lap/
                                           shoulder belt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (1) Their sitting height is high
     enough so that they can, without
     the aid of a booster seat:
        wear the shoulder belt
         comfortably across their
         shoulder, and secure the lap
         belt across their pelvis, and
    (2) Their legs are long enough to
     bend over the front of the seat
     when their backs are against the
     vehicle seat back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* To determine whether a particular restraint is appropriate for your
  child, see restraint manufacturer's recommendations concerning the
  weight of children who may safely use the restraint.

    We believe that it is important that seat belt positioners and 
other child passenger devices, and the statements in their marketing 
and packaging, not induce parents and other care givers to restrain 
children in a way that may be appropriate for a larger child, but not 
for that child. For example, children who cannot meet the sitting 
height and leg length criteria in the agency's recommendations should 
not be placed directly on a vehicle seat, restrained by the vehicle 
seat belts.
    We believe that if seat belt positioners are marketed for children 
under 6 years old, they can induce people to act contrary to this 
advice. The 50th percentile 3-year-old male child weighs 33 lb. Under 
our recommendations, a 3-year-old child should be restrained by a 
forward-facing child restraint (a convertible or toddler seat) rather 
than by the vehicle's seat belts. When the child outgrows a forward-
facing convertible or toddler seat, he or she should use a child 
booster seat, which lifts and positions the child to fit a vehicle's 
belt system. The booster seat should be used until the child is tall 
enough to wear the vehicle's lap and shoulder belts properly without an 
accessory, and can sit comfortably on the vehicle seat with knees bent 
over the front of the seat when the child's back is against the vehicle 
seat back.
    We note that it is uncertain whether seat belt positioners are now 
generally marketed for use with 3-year-old children. We believe that 
the positioners are usually advertised in both their promotional 
materials and in statements on their packaging as being suitable for 
children who weigh 50 lb or more, which is approximately the weight of 
the 50th percentile 6-year-old male (48 lb). A positioner that, several 
years ago, had been advertised in packaging as suitable for use by 
children as young as 3 years old, 2 no longer is so 
recommended. Now, it is instead marketed as suitable for children 
weighing over 50 lb. Further, it is uncertain whether or to what extent 
seat belt positioners are being used with children 3- to 6-years old. 
State child restraint use laws requiring the use of child safety seats 
would indirectly prohibit use of a positioner alone in combination with 
vehicle seat belts (with no child safety seat), for restraining very 
young children (e.g., under the age of 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This positioner, the Child-Safer, was included in NHTSA's 
test program, infra, and tested with the 3-year-old dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's Dynamic Testing of Seat Belt Positioners

    Following the issuance of the July 1995 rule, NHTSA published a 
report on an evaluation by our Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) 
of three types of seat belt positioners. ``Evaluation of Devices to 
Improve Shoulder Belt Fit,'' DOT HS 808 383, Sullivan and Chambers, 
August 1994.3 The three devices were the ChildSafer, a 
plastic strip that attaches to the lap belt and that has three 
different openings through which the shoulder belt can be routed; the 
SafeFit, a pouch design through which the lap/shoulder belt is routed; 
and the Seatbelt Adjuster, a plastic clip that attaches to the lap 
belt, which has a flange through which the shoulder belt is rerouted. 
The ChildSafer was then recommended for occupants between the heights 
of 38 inches (the standing height of the average 3-year-old male child) 
to 60 inches. VRTC conducted a series of 35 sled tests using a dynamic 
test procedure to evaluate seat belt positioners using the standard 
frontal condition specified in Standard 213 4, as well as 
modified conditions to simulate oblique (15 degree offset) impacts. 
VRTC used test dummies representing a 3-year-old and 6-year-old child, 
and a 5th percentile adult female. In the test representing a 15 degree 
offset impact, the test seat assembly was placed in two different 
positions, rotated clockwise (occupant faces toward shoulder portion of 
seat belt) and rotated counterclockwise (occupant faces away from 
shoulder portion of seat belt).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While the study was conducted in 1994, preparation of the 
report for publication was not completed until 1995. The report is 
available from the National Technical Information Service, 
Springfield, VA 22161.
    \4\ Standard 213's dynamic test uses a standard vehicle seat 
assembly to which a child restraint system is attached by means of a 
vehicle seat belt. The seat assembly, along with the child restraint 
system, is subjected to a frontal 30 mph change of velocity over a 
duration of about 80 milliseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VRTC found that injury criteria measurements were generally higher 
when a seat belt positioner was used in restraining the 3-year-old 
dummy than when the child dummy was restrained without a belt 
positioner. (The latter case is referred to as the ``baseline'' 
configuration. In the baseline tests conducted using the 3-year-old 
dummy, the dummy was positioned such that the shoulder belt was 
positioned across the shoulder and away from the neck area as best as 
possible.) When tested in the baseline configuration, i.e., with no 
positioner, the HIC values were less than 1000 for all tests. (However, 
the HIC value for the three-year-old dummy

[[Page 44167]]

in the baseline/clockwise orientation was marginal at 995.) When tested 
with the positioners, HIC levels, for the most part, exceeded the 1000 
HIC limit of Standard 213.
    In all of the tests (with and without seat belt positioners) with 
the 3-year-old dummy, the dummy's head hit his forearms. In some tests, 
these head impacts were more severe than in others. In some tests with 
a seat belt positioner, the forehead would hit one forearm and then 
bounce to the other forearm. These contacts contributed to the increase 
of the HIC measurements. However, although removing the effect of the 
head contact reduced the HIC values by about 6 percent, the HIC values 
were still above the Standard 213 criterion of 1000.
    In other tests with a seat belt positioner, the shoulder belt 
portion of the lap/shoulder belt slipped off the shoulder, allowing the 
3-year-old dummy to slip around the belt. In tests of the 3-year-old 
dummy in the frontal crash configuration with a seat belt positioner, 
the increased chest g's and head and knee excursions were still within 
the limits of the standard. One positioner lowered chest g measurements 
in the frontal and 15 degree offset crash configurations.
    In tests with the 6-year-old dummy, when using a seat belt 
positioner, the dummy tended to ``roll-out'' of the seat belt 
positioner and around the shoulder belt. The HIC, chest g's, and head 
and knee excursions increased in some cases but were generally within 
the limits for all the tests (with and without seat belt positioners), 
except one of the seat belt positioners had chest g measurements 
exceeding the limit of Standard 213 in the frontal and 15 degree offset 
clockwise tests. That device introduced slack in the shoulder belt 
during the test. In some of the tests, the positioners resulted in 
injury criteria values that were lower than or approximately the same 
as those obtained in the baseline tests.
    The complete test results are set forth in Tables 1 and 2 below. 
Those results should be compared to the requirements of Standard 213, 
which specifies testing in the frontal crash condition and limits HIC 
to 1000; chest acceleration to 60 g's; head excursion to 813 mm; and 
knee excursion to 915 mm.

                          Table 1.--Injury Criteria and Excursion for 3-Year-Old Dummy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Head         Knee
                                            Fit device            HIC       Chest clip   excursion    excursion
                                                                               (g)          (mm)         (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Limits of Standard 213         1000           60          813          915
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Year-Old..........................  Baseline (No Device)..          874         48.7          477          553
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frontal.............................  Child Safer...........         1309         55.1          560          615
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      SafeFit...............         1095         56.5          496          618
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Seatbelt adjuster.....          999         48.1          551          583
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Year-Old..........................  Baseline (No Device)..          995         48.5          411          535
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 deg. Offset Clock-wise...........  Child Safer...........         1565         52.3          564          665
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      SafeFit...............         1435         62.1          486          639
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Seatbelt adjuster.....         1238         45.4          452          580
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Table 2.--Injury Criteria and Excursion for 6-Year-Old Dummy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Head         Knee
                                            Fit device            HIC       Chest clip   excursion    excursion
                                                                               (g)          (mm)         (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Limits of Standard 213         1000           60          813          915
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Year-Old..........................  Baseline (No Device)..          657         50.4          481          628
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frontal.............................  Child Safer...........          769         65.2          567          674
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      SafeFit...............          427         49.1          566          649
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Seatbelt adjuster.....          634         50.8          473          604
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Year-Old..........................  Baseline (No Device)..          595         54.3          435          602
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 deg. Offset Clockwise............  Child Safer...........          947         67.1          540          661
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      SafeFit...............          621         57.7          461          580
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Seatbelt adjuster.....          794         55.1          493          640
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Year-Old..........................  Baseline (No Device)..          409         48.5          516          607
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 deg. Offset Counter-clockwise....  Child Safer...........          509         50.1          628          605
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      SafeFit...............          386         42.8          577          589
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Seatbelt adjuster.....          374         45.7          554          559
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 44168]]

Agency Decision Regarding AAP's Petition

    NHTSA is granting AAP's petition and is proposing to amend our 
labeling regulation to require seat belt positioners to be labeled with 
a warning against using the devices with children under the age of 
6.5 We also request comment on whether the requirements 
proposed in this NPRM should also apply to seat belt positioners 
installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle, in addition to seat 
belt positioners sold directly to consumers in the ``aftermarket.'' We 
are also asking for information on other possible courses of action we 
could take with regard to the devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In November 1998, NHTSA Administrator Ricardo Martinez, 
M.D., formed a ``Blue Ribbon Panel,'' consisting of representatives 
from the auto and child restraint safety communities, to examine 
ways to ensure the proper protection of children ages 5 to 16 in 
motor vehicles. On March 15, 1999, the panel released a set of 
recommendations, including a number in the areas of product design 
and research that directly address the issue of seat belt 
positioning devices. NHTSA will consider the recommendations of the 
panel in conjunction with those comments received in response to 
this notice in determining the appropriate course of action 
regarding the regulation of belt positioning devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue 1: Is There a Safety Need for This Rulemaking Action?

    A real-world safety problem has not been quantified thus far. There 
are no complaints in our crash files concerning seat belt positioners. 
AAP did not submit any information indicating that positioners are 
actually causing or exacerbating injuries.
    The VRTC study found that there could be a potential safety 
problem. The study found that three types of positioners generally 
degraded the performance of the lap/shoulder belt system when tested 
with the 3-year-old dummy, by increasing the head and chest injury 
criteria measurements, and head and knee excursion measurements, over 
the measurements made in the baseline tests. One positioner slightly 
decreased chest clip values measured in the frontal and 15 degree 
offset tests. HIC levels for the positioners were at or exceeded the 
1000 HIC limit of Standard 213 in all tests. When tested with the 6-
year-old dummy, the positioners generally performed adequately, by 
keeping the injury criteria measurements within the limits of the 
standard. In some of the tests, the positioners resulted in injury 
criteria values that were lower than or approximately the same as those 
obtained in the baseline tests.
    However, although HIC values generally exceeded the limit of 
Standard 213 in tests with the 3-year-old dummy, seat belt positioners 
might not be typically used with 3-year-old children. As noted above, 
the devices are typically marketed (in advertising literature and on 
packaging) for children who weigh 50 lb or more, which is approximately 
the weight of the 50th percentile 6-year-old male (48 lb). In view of 
the current marketing of seat belt positioners for use by children 
weighing 50 lb or more, we request comments on whether regulating the 
devices is warranted.
    While the VRTC study compared the performance of the various seat 
belt positioners to a baseline configuration of the test dummy 
restrained without the positioner (i.e., positioned directly on the 
test seat and restrained by a lap/shoulder belt), we also compared the 
performance of the seat belt positioners (as measured in the VRTC 
study) to Standard 213 compliance test results of convertible child 
restraints and belt-positioning seats. We compared the VRTC test 
results of the seat belt positioning devices to compliance tests that 
were conducted by the agency between 1993 and 1998, using the 3-year-
old dummy in convertible child restraints and the 6-year-old dummy in 
belt-positioning booster seats. The average HIC value in 363 compliance 
tests conducted on convertible child restraints using the 3-year-old 
dummy is 483.6, as compared to an average HIC of 1,134.3 for the three 
seat belt positioners tested (using the frontal crash scenario results 
only). This is a 57.3 percent reduction of HIC values when using the 
convertible-type child restraint. Test results also indicate that chest 
acceleration values are reduced to an average of 46.9 g's in the 363 
compliance tests using the 3-year-old dummy in a convertible child 
restraint, from an average of 53.2 g's using the seat belt positioning 
devices.
    The average head and knee excursion in the compliance tests of the 
convertible seats was found to be 28.9 inches and 32.5 inches, 
respectively. These values are somewhat greater than the 21.1 inches 
and 23.8 inches for head and knee excursion found for the belt 
positioning devices during the VRTC study, but still well within the 
limits of 32 inches and 36 inches prescribed in Standard 213. It should 
also be noted that beginning in September of this year, child 
restraints will be required to meet more stringent requirements with 
respect to the allowable head excursion in dynamic testing. Convertible 
child restraints manufactured on or after September 1, 1999 will be 
required to limit head excursion of the test dummy to a maximum of 28 
inches (the restraints may incorporate a tether to meet this 
requirement).
    The average values for each of the injury criteria measured with 
the 6-year-old dummy in compliance tests of belt-positioning booster 
seats are below those measured using the seat belt positioning devices 
in the VRTC study. HIC values in 17 compliance tests of belt-
positioning booster seats using the 6-year-old dummy have averaged 464, 
as compared to 610 for the seat belt positioning devices in the VRTC 
study, and chest acceleration values have averaged 48.8 g's for belt-
positioning booster seats, as compared to 55 g's for the seat belt 
positioning devices. Head and knee excursion are also reduced by an 
average of 1 inch each when using a belt-positioning seat.
    The data above indicate that children are typically afforded 
greater levels of protection when using convertible-type and belt-
positioning booster seats than when using the seat belt positioning 
devices tested in the VRTC study. These data indicate that a 3-year-old 
child should not be restrained using a seat belt positioning device. 
Children of this age should typically be restrained in a convertible-
type child restraint, which often offers a 5-point harness for added 
protection in the event of a crash. Further, the data show that a 6-
year-old child restrained in a belt-positioning booster seat is 
provided a greater level of safety protection than when using a seat 
belt positioning device.

Issue 2: Should We Require a Warning Label for the Devices?

    Our tests of seat belt positioners indicate that they generally 
performed adequately with the 6-year-old dummy, but did not do so in 
tests with 3-year-old dummy. (The devices increased the latter dummy's 
HIC values to unacceptable levels.) In view of this, we are proposing 
to require that the devices be labeled with a warning that they must 
not be used with children under a certain age, e.g., 6 years. 
Alternatively, a child's height might be a better predictor of whether 
a positioner would perform adequately than a child's age. Thus, we also 
are requesting comments on whether the label should include a warning 
against using the devices with children under a certain height, e.g., 
the height of a 50th percentile 6-year-old male (47.5 inches, or 1206 
mm), as an alternative or in addition to the warning referencing the 
child's age.
    We are proposing that seat belt positioners be labeled with 
information that would maximize the correct positioning of the belts on 
the child. The lap and shoulder belt needs to be positioned so as to 
maximize the

[[Page 44169]]

distribution of the crash forces to the child's skeletal structure. The 
lap belt and the shoulder belt should not be positioned such that they 
would increase the loading of the soft tissues and organs of the 
child's abdomen. The shoulder belt should not be aligned so that the 
child might twist toward the middle of the vehicle in a crash, or 
adjusted with excessive slack in the belt. We thus propose that seat 
belt positioners be labeled with the statement: ``Make sure that this 
device positions the lap belt low across the child's hips and not on 
the stomach. The shoulder belt must be snug and on the child's 
shoulder, not near the neck or off the shoulder.'' Comments are 
requested on this issue.
    The regulatory text provided in this NPRM proposes a permanent 
label that includes the information, noted above, as to how the lap and 
shoulder belt should be properly fitted, and information as to the 
model name or number of the system, the manufacturer's name, and the 
place of manufacture. The latter information would be required to 
assist in identifying the equipment for purposes of a finding of a 
safety defect or a recall. Is there enough room on these devices for a 
permanent label which incorporates all of this information in a 
readable size? If not, are there alternative means to convey the same 
information, e.g., a permanent label warning ``Do not use for children 
under 6'' on the device, in conjunction with a requirement that the 
remaining information be provided with the packaging material?

Issue 3: Should the Devices Be Regulated by Standard 213?

    The agency tentatively believes that it would not be appropriate 
for seat belt positioners to be regulated by Standard 213. Standard 213 
does not apply to devices recommended for children weighing over 50 lb, 
which, NHTSA believes, is the recommended weight range for the users of 
most, if not all, positioners. Further, even if the current 
requirements of Standard 213 were extended to such devices, there is 
some question of whether those requirements could effectively assess 
belt positioners.
    If the current test procedure and injury criteria of Standard 213 
were used to test and evaluate the devices, it appears that belt 
positioners would generally pass Standard 213 when tested in accordance 
with the standard, i.e., with the 6-year-old dummy. This conformance 
would leave unaddressed and even obscure the question of whether the 
standard would be able to distinguish between acceptable and 
unacceptable performance of belt positioners. Belt positioning devices 
can cause the lap belt to rise above the hips in a crash and press into 
the soft abdominal area instead of staying lower and lying across the 
child's hips, thereby increasing the potential for abdominal injury. 
Currently there are no abdominal sensors on the child dummies used by 
NHTSA in compliance testing, or injury criteria developed, and thus no 
way to evaluate the potential for abdominal injury using the existing 
test protocols of Standard 213.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Similarly, belt positioning devices increased neck load and 
moments in the VRTC tests when used with the 5th percentile female 
dummy compared to baseline conditions (no device). No neck injury 
assessment was performed using child dummies because child dummies 
equipped with a neck load cell were not available at the time that 
the VRTC test program was conducted. On September 18, 1998, NHTSA 
proposed to amend Standard 208 to require the use of new 12-month-, 
3-year-, and 6-year-old dummies that are instrumented with load 
cells to measure neck forces and moments when evaluating air bags in 
frontal crashes (63 FR 49957). The proposal also included neck 
injury criteria. If a procedure and criteria are adopted, seat belt 
positioners and other child safety devices may be evaluated for 
potential child neck injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If Standard 213 were applied to belt positioners, some consumers 
might erroneously conclude that a belt positioner certified to the 
Federal standard would provide the same level of protection as a child 
restraint system. Some parents might respond to the certification of 
belt positioners by prematurely moving their child out of a child 
safety seat into the vehicle seat belt system, believing that the 
``certified'' belt positioner renders the vehicle belt system adequate 
for the child. The premature ``graduation'' of a child to the vehicle 
belt system would be contrary to NHTSA's recommendations on restraining 
children and could degrade the child's crash protection.
    NHTSA believes that children who cannot properly wear the vehicle 
shoulder belt without a positioning device should still be using a 
child restraint system, such as a toddler seat or a belt-positioning 
booster, rather than the vehicle belt system. A toddler seat provides a 
high back for neck support and typically has side supports that cushion 
and protect the child in frontal and side impacts. Seat belt 
positioners do not provide such protection. In addition, toddler seats 
have an internal restraint system (a harness system which may include a 
shield or shelf) which fits the child better than vehicle belts and 
which does not allow direct contact of a vehicle lap belt with the 
child. Thus, the child restraint diverts and distributes dynamic crash 
forces away from vulnerable parts of the child's body. Further, a 
toddler or booster seat is more comfortable for children whose legs are 
too short to allow them to bend their knees when sitting upright 
against the vehicle seat back. These children will slouch down when 
seated directly on the vehicle seat cushion, so as to bend their knees, 
and in doing so are likely to reposition the vehicle's lap belt over 
the soft abdominal area.7 The more comfortable fit of the 
child restraint system's platform seat therefore results in a safer fit 
of the lap restraint, compared to the fit of the lap belt on a child 
sitting directly on the vehicle cushion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Study of Older Child Restraint/Booster Seat Fit and NASS 
Injury Analysis,'' Klinich, Pritz, Welty, et al., DOT HS 808 248, 
November 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Older children who can fit in a belt-positioning booster seat would 
be safer in such seats than seated on a vehicle seat using the vehicle 
seat belts and a seat belt positioning device of the types discussed in 
this document. The main object of belt positioning devices is to adjust 
the shoulder belt portion of a Type II (lap and shoulder) belt so as 
not to cross the child's face or neck. Booster seats achieve this 
objective by raising the child in relation to the belts--rather than 
vice versa, as with belt positioning devices--and thereby make it less 
likely, than when using a positioning device, that the lap belt would 
be positioned over the child's abdomen. Boosters provide a seating 
platform that enable children to bend their knees without slouching, 
which may occur when the child is seated directly on the vehicle seat. 
As noted in the previous paragraph, slouching can result in the 
repositioning of a lap belt over the child's soft abdominal area. 
Booster seats also hold the child more securely and reduce the 
likelihood that excessive slack will be introduced into the belt 
system. Again, however, these differences would be obscured by the fact 
that both the seat belt positioner and the booster seat would be 
certified as complying with ``all applicable Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards.'' Thus, consumers might mistakenly assume that both 
offer comparable levels of protection when they would not.
    To avoid this misunderstanding, NHTSA tentatively believes seat 
belt positioners should not be considered as the same type of device as 
a child restraint system, or regulated by Standard 213. Comments are 
requested on this issue. (We also note, however, that use of booster 
seats for children weighing more than 40 pounds has been

[[Page 44170]]

documented to be very low. The availability of belt positioning devices 
may encourage some people to use the shoulder portion of a lap/shoulder 
belt who otherwise would put the shoulder belt behind their back due to 
physical discomfort. Putting the shoulder belt behind the back 
dramatically decreases restraint effectiveness.)

Issue 4: Should the Devices Be Subject to Performance Requirements? If 
Yes, What Requirements Would Be Appropriate?

    Despite the tentative conclusion above, comments are requested 
regarding a performance requirement, in lieu of or in addition to, a 
labeling requirement. Comments are requested on the feasibility of 
developing a practical procedure to dynamically test the performance of 
these devices when used alone with the vehicle's belt system, and also 
in conjunction with a child restraint system. If commenters are 
supportive of performance requirements for seat belt positioners, NHTSA 
requests that they provide methods by which to assess the injury 
potential for areas of identified concern, such as abdominal and neck 
loading. As noted above in this document, NHTSA issued a September 18, 
1998 proposal to amend Standard 208, to require the use of new child 
dummies that are instrumented with load cells to measure neck forces 
and moments when evaluating air bags in frontal crashes. The proposal 
included neck injury criteria. Comments are requested on the 
appropriateness of using the proposed procedure and criteria for 
evaluating neck injury potential using various child dummies restrained 
in seat belt positioners.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) 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 prepared a 
preliminary regulatory evaluation (PRE) for this document which 
discusses issues relating to the potential costs, benefits and other 
impacts of this regulatory action. The PRE is available in Docket No. 
99-5100 and may be obtained by contacting Docket Management at the 
address or telephone number provided at the beginning of this document. 
You may also read the document via the Internet, by following the 
instructions in the section below entitled, ``How can I read the 
comments submitted by other people?'' The PRE will be listed in the 
docket summary, along with the comments from other people.
    The PRE notes that labeling positioners as proposed in this NPRM 
could be beneficial in helping assure that young children are 
restrained in the most appropriate manner for their size or age. This 
would help prevent the degradation of safety benefits that occurs when 
seat belts are not properly fitted across occupants' shoulders and 
hips. However, we cannot currently quantify these benefits because no 
data exist to determine the target population. The PRE estimates that 
labeling costs resulting from the proposed labeling requirements of 
this NPRM could be $0.05 to $0.08 for the manufacturer's cost, 
depending on the type of label used, and between $0.12 and $0.19 per 
positioner for the consumer. The cost to label the roughly 1.7 million 
positioners sold annually is expected to be between $204,000 and 
$323,000.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354), as 
amended, requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their 
proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and 
small governmental jurisdictions. Section 603 of the Act requires 
agencies to prepare and make available for public comment a preliminary 
regulatory flexibility analysis (PRFA) describing the impact of 
proposed rules on small entities. NHTSA has included a PRFA in the PRE 
for this proposal.
    Business entities are generally defined as small businesses by 
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, for the purposes of 
receiving Small Business Administration assistance. One of the criteria 
for determining size, as stated in 13 CFR 121.601, is the number of 
employees in the firm. To qualify as a small business in the Motor 
Vehicle Parts and Accessories category (SIC 3714), the firm must have 
fewer than 750 employees. The agency has considered the small business 
impacts of this proposed rule based on this criterion.
    The PRFA discusses the possible impacts of this action on small 
businesses that manufacture belt positioning devices and requests 
information that would assist NHTSA in further analyzing those impacts. 
As noted above, possible labeling costs resulting from the labeling 
provisions of this NPRM are estimated to be $0.05 to $0.08 for the 
manufacturer's cost. Added consumer costs could be from $0.12 to $0.19. 
The agency tentatively believes that the cost increase would not 
significantly raise the price of seat belt positioners, and would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

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 proposal 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 would not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. A 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceeding will 
not be a prerequisite to an action seeking judicial review of this 
rule. This proposed rule would not preempt the states from adopting 
laws or regulations on the same subject, except that it would preempt a 
state regulation that is in actual conflict with the Federal regulation 
or makes compliance with the Federal regulation impossible or 
interferes with the implementation of the Federal statute.

Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.

[[Page 44171]]

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1999-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments.
    You may download the comments. However, since the comments are 
imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded 
comments are not word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 575

    Consumer protection, Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 
vehicles.

PART 575--[AMENDED] CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
Part 575 as set forth below.
    1. The authority citation for Part 575 would continue 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 575.4(a) would be revised to read as follows:

Subpart A--General

* * * * *


Sec. 575.4  Application

    (a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of 
this section, each section set forth in subpart B of this part applies, 
according to its terms, to motor vehicles, tires and items of motor 
vehicle equipment manufactured after the effective date indicated.
* * * * *
    3. Section 575.101 would be added to read as follows:


Sec. 575.101  Seat belt positioners

    (a) Scope. This section requires manufacturers of seat belt 
positioners to provide information about the correct use of the devices 
and warn against the use of the devices with small children.
    (b) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide purchasers 
information related to the performance of seat belt positioners with 
small children.
    (c) Application. This section applies to seat belt positioners that 
are not an integral part of a motor vehicle.
    (d) Definitions. Seat belt positioner means a device, other than a 
belt-positioning seat, that is manufactured to alter the positioning of 
Type I and/or Type II belt systems in motor vehicles.
    (e) Requirements. Each manufacturer of a seat belt positioner shall 
permanently label the device with the following information:
    (1) The model name or number of the system.
    (2) The manufacturer's name, or a distributor's name, if the 
distributor assumes responsibility for all duties and liabilities 
imposed on the manufacturer with respect to the device by 49 U.S.C. 
30101 et seq.
    (3) The place of manufacture (city and State, or foreign country), 
or the location (city and State, or foreign country) of the principal 
offices of the distributor, if the distributor's name is used instead 
of the manufacturer's name.
    (4) A statement warning that the device must not be used with 
children under the age of six [alternatively, or additionally, under 
the height of 47.5 inches (1206 mm).]
    (5) The statement: ``Make sure that this device positions the lap 
belt low across the child's hips and not on the stomach. The shoulder 
belt must be snug and on the child's shoulder, not near the neck or off 
the shoulder.''

    Issued on August 9, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-20950 Filed 8-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P