[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 23, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13503-13504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-6397]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

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


Consumer Information Regulations; Seat Belt Positioners

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

ACTION: Withdrawal of rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking 
published in 1999 in response to a petition for rulemaking from the 
American Academy of Pediatrics. After considering the comments on the 
NPRM and the advancements that have been attained in the testing of 
child passenger protection devices, the agency has decided not to 
proceed with the NPRM's proposed labeling requirement. Before taking 
further action in this area, the agency would like to expand its 
knowledge base with data from up-to-date tests of current belt 
positioners, using the advanced test protocols and child test dummies 
available today. Because NHTSA will not be able to conclude its 
analysis of the issues of this rulemaking in the near future, we have 
decided to withdraw the August 1999 NPRM.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This document withdraws a rulemaking that began in response to a 
January 31, 1996 petition from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 
that requested that the agency regulate aftermarket seat belt 
positioners under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
213, ``Child Restraint Systems'' (49 CFR 571.213). AAP stated in its 
petition 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 
was concerned 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 believed that the devices should be subject to a 
safety standard so that they would be required to meet a minimum level 
of performance.
    On August 13, 1999 (64 FR 44164, Docket No. 99-5100), NHTSA granted 
the petition and published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that 
sought to regulate seat belt positioners by way of a consumer 
information regulation. The NPRM discussed the results of a study \1\ 
that the agency had conducted in 1994 on three seat belt positioners 
that were then on the market. In the study, the agency dynamically 
tested the belt positioning devices under the conditions then-specified 
for testing child restraints under FMVSS No. 213. A Hybrid II 3-year-
old and 6-year-old dummy were used (which, in 1994, were the state-of-
the-art dummies used to test child restraints), and a Hybrid III 5th 
percentile female adult dummy. NHTSA restrained the dummies in lap/
shoulder belts with, and without, the devices, and compared the 
results. 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 (HIC values were greater than 
1000). In one case, the measured chest acceleration exceeded the FMVSS 
No. 213 limit of 60 g's. The devices generally performed adequately 
with the 6-year-old dummy with respect to HIC, in that the performance 
criteria of FMVSS No. 213 were not exceeded. However, one positioner 
had chest g measurements exceeding the FMVSS No. 213 limit in both 
frontal and offset tests. In each case, there was some reduction in the 
performance of the vehicle belt system restraining the dummy.\2\ After 
reviewing these results, the agency proposed to require seat belt 
positioners to be labeled as not suitable for children under age 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Evaluation of Devices to Improve Shoulder Belt Fit,'' DOT 
HS 808 383, Sullivan and Chambers, August 1994.
    \2\ HIC values greater than 1000 were observed with two of the 
devices during 5 of 6 tests with the 5th percentile female dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM requested comments on four issues. The first issue was 
whether there was a safety need for the rulemaking action. There were 
no real-world data indicating that positioners were causing or 
exacerbating injuries. The second issue pertained to whether the 
devices should be labeled with a warning against using them with 
children under age 6. Third was whether the devices should be regulated 
by FMVSS No. 213. Then-existing child test dummies were not 
instrumented to measure abdominal loads, and there was no injury 
criterion developed that delineated between acceptable and unacceptable 
abdominal loading. The fourth issue related to the feasibility of 
adopting a performance requirement for seat belt positioners and the 
performance criteria that would distinguish between acceptable and 
unacceptable performance.
    NHTSA received approximately 14 comments to the NPRM. Commenters

[[Page 13504]]

believed that, even absent the ability to quantify a safety problem 
using existing crash data, seat belt positioning devices should be 
regulated by means of a labeling and/or performance standard. Several 
were concerned that consumers mistakenly think that the products are 
regulated in the same way as booster seats and provide comparable 
protection. Almost all of the commenters said that there should be a 
label regarding the proper use of the devices. In opposition, a 
manufacturer of a belt positioner questioned ``the logic behind 
requiring a warning label without a testing standard.'' Almost all 
believed that belt positioners should be differentiated from booster 
seats, and that regulating the devices under FMVSS No. 213 could 
mislead consumers into thinking that the two devices were 
interchangeable. Most of the commenters supported having a performance 
requirement for seat belt positioners to assess how the devices would 
perform in a crash. However, some commenters stated that criteria 
needed to assess the suitability of a seat belt positioner in providing 
crash protection to a child (e.g., limits on abdominal and lumbar 
spinal forces) are largely undeveloped.
    After the NPRM was published, the Transportation Recall 
Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act of 2000 (the TREAD 
Act) (November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800) was enacted, 
which among other things, directed NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking for 
the purpose of improving the safety of child restraints. The agency's 
initiation of rulemaking resulted in a final rule, issued in June 2003, 
that amended FMVSS No. 213 to incorporate advanced child test dummies 
in the testing of child restraints and to revise the test conditions of 
the standard to better represent current model passenger vehicles. 68 
FR 37620; June 24, 2003; Docket No. NHTSA-03-15351. New state-of-the-
art Hybrid III test dummies representing a 12-month-old, 3-year-old and 
6-year-old child were incorporated into the standard, as well as a 
weighted 6-year-old dummy.
    NHTSA's work developing a Hybrid III test dummy representing a 10-
year-old child was underway at the time of the TREAD Act, but was not 
far enough along for the dummy to be included in that rulemaking. Now, 
however, developmental work on the dummy is nearly complete.

Agency Decision

    After considering the comments on the August 13, 1999 NPRM and the 
advancements that have been attained in the testing of child passenger 
protection devices, the agency has decided not to proceed with the 
labeling requirement proposed in the NPRM. Before taking further action 
in this area, the agency would like to augment the technical basis of 
this rulemaking by supplementing the data obtained from the 1994 study 
of three seat belt positioners with data from up-to-date tests of 
current belt positioners, using the advanced test protocols and child 
test dummies available today.
    There still is no evidence of a real-world safety problem with seat 
belt positioners. However, NHTSA has been directed by ``Anton's Law'' 
(Pub. L. 107-318, 116 Stat. 2772, December 4, 2002) to initiate 
rulemaking to consider whether to establish injury performance criteria 
and seat belt fit performance requirements for belt guidance devices. 
Accordingly, rather than requiring labeling at this time, the agency 
has initiated a targeted test program with the advanced child test 
dummies, including the Hybrid III 10-year-old child test dummy, to 
assess the need for and feasibility of developing performance 
requirements for belt positioners.
    We are especially interested in the potential use of the 10-year-
old dummy in evaluating forces that a seat belt positioner could 
redirect to a child's abdominal and lumbar areas in a crash. That dummy 
has a molded seated pelvis with anterior superior iliac spine load cell 
attachment locations for measuring lap belt forces. The dummy's lumbar 
and pelvis can also be adjusted to slouched or upright postures, so the 
dummy can be used to assess performance of the belts and belt 
positioners with slouching children. Children whose legs are too short 
to allow them to bend their knees when sitting upright against the 
vehicle seat back will slouch down when seated directly on the cushion 
to bend their knees. ``Study of Older Child Restraint/Booster Seat Fit 
and NASS Injury Analysis,'' Klinich et al., DOT HS 808 248, November 
1994. This phenomenon, to which Klinich et al. refer as the ``slouch 
factor,'' will affect placement of the lap belt portion of the seat 
belt on the abdomen. (Discussion of the slouch factor's contribution to 
poor belt fit can also be found at 64 FR at 44169, columns 2 and 3.) We 
believe that the test program will provide useful data that will 
enhance our ability to determine what regulatory approach, if any, 
would be most appropriate to address belt fit on older children.
    One anticipated use of the data will be to assess how labeling can 
be made most effective at inducing parents to restrain children in a 
way that is appropriate for those children. After reviewing the 
comments on the NPRM, NHTSA became concerned that the labeling proposed 
in the NPRM could be misconstrued by some parents as an agency 
recommendation that it would be acceptable to restrain 6-year-old 
children in a vehicle belt system if a belt-positioner were used. Such 
a conclusion would be contrary to the recommendations of the agency 
that 6-year-olds are best restrained when in a belt-positioning 
booster.\3\ Any labeling that may eventually be required must be 
careful not to induce parents to forego restraining their child in the 
safest manner possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NHTSA recommends that children who have outgrown child 
safety seats should be properly restrained in a booster seat until 
they are at least 8 years old, unless they are 4'9'' tall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the complexity of the issues, the testing that will be 
conducted pursuant to Anton's Law, and the limited resources of the 
agency, NHTSA will not be able to conclude its analysis of the issues 
of this rulemaking in the near future. We have therefore decided to 
withdraw the August 1999 NPRM. Notwithstanding this withdrawal, it is 
noted that seat belt positioners are items of motor vehicle equipment 
and therefore 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.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166 and Pub. L. 
106-414, 114 Stat. 1800; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on March 17, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-6397 Filed 3-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P