[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 60 (Monday, March 29, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16202-16211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-6901]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 99-5891; Notice 02]
RIN 2127-AH14


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Termination of rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This notice terminates a rulemaking proceeding concerning a 
petition for rulemaking from Kathleen Weber of the University of 
Michigan Child Passenger Protection Research Program in Ann Arbor, 
Michigan. The

[[Page 16203]]

petition addresses the unavailability of child restraints for children 
weighing more than 18 kg (approximately 40 pounds (lb)) that can be 
used in seating positions that are equipped with only lap belts instead 
of lap and shoulder belts.
    The agency published a request for comments in the Federal 
Register. After considering the public comments received on the 
agency's request for comments on the petition, evaluating the results 
of a test program conducted to aid in the evaluation of the petition, 
considering recent developments concerning child restraints and tethers 
in Standards 213 and 225, passage of Anton's Law, and noting the 
emergence of products that have been available to restrain children 
over 18 kg that utilize a lap belt only without a tether, the agency 
has concluded that Standard 213 should not be amended at this time as 
proposed in the petition. However, we will continue to address this 
issue in support of Anton's Law.

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:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Unavailability of Child Restraints for Children Weighing More 
Than 40 Pounds in Seating Positions With Lap Belts Only
    B. The Petition
    C. Changes Regarding Tether and Head Excursion Requirements
II. NHTSA Conducts Test Program to Evaluate Performance of Child 
Restraints in Limiting Head Excursion of 6-Year-Old Dummy.
III. Comments Received
IV. Agency Decision to Terminate Rulemaking

I. Background

A. Unavailability of Child Restraints for Children Weighing More Than 
40 Pounds in Seating Positions With Lap Belts Only

    Booster seats are designed for children who have outgrown a 
convertible or toddler child restraint system. They are generally 
designed for children who are about 4 to 8 years old, and who weigh 
more than 18 kg. Shield booster seats, which are capable of being used 
with only a vehicle's lap belt, were available in the past, but became 
unavailable for children weighing over 18 kg subsequent to an upgrade 
that NHTSA made to the standard pursuant to the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act (``ISTEA'') of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-240). 
That Act directed NHTSA to initiate rulemaking on a number of safety 
matters, including child booster seat safety (Sec.  250). The 
legislative history for the directive indicated that its impetus was a 
study finding that shield booster seats then manufactured could not 
adequately restrain test dummies representing the children for whom the 
seats were recommended by the manufacturers. In the study \1\, the 
boosters could not adequately restrain a 22 kg (48 lb) test dummy 
(representing a 6-year-old) when dynamically tested under Standard 213. 
The boosters were ineffective at limiting head excursions to within the 
requirements of Standard 213, and two of the boosters failed 
structurally. The boosters also failed to prevent the ejection of a 9 
kg (20 lb) test dummy (representing a 9-month-old child) in the dynamic 
test. These phenomena were observed notwithstanding the recommendation 
of some booster seat manufacturers that their seats were suitable for 
children weighing from 9 up to 32 kg (20 up to 70 lb).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Edward C. Hiltner, ``Evaluation of Booster Seat Suitability 
for Children of Different Ages and Comparison of Standard and 
Modified SA103C and SA106C Child Dummies,'' Final Report DOT HS 807 
844, February 1990.
    \2\ Because at that time only a 3-year-old dummy was used in 
Standard 213's compliance test, the boosters could meet the standard 
when tested with that dummy and were thus certified as complying 
with the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to this study and to the ISTEA directive, NHTSA amended 
Standard 213 in two ways. First, the standard was amended to permit the 
manufacture of belt-positioning booster seats (59 FR 37167, July 21, 
1994). A belt-positioning booster seat is designed to use both portions 
of a vehicle's Type II belt to restrain the child. A belt-positioning 
seat is not directly attached to the vehicle seat, but is held in place 
by the child's mass and the vehicle's Type II belt, which is strapped 
over the child's lap and torso, just as the Type II belt is used to 
restrain an adult occupant. A belt-positioning seat must not be used 
with a vehicle's lap belt alone, since the seat lacks structure or an 
internal belt to restrain the child's upper torso. Second, NHTSA also 
incorporated the 6-year-old and 9-month-old dummies into the standard's 
compliance test protocols, to ensure a more thorough evaluation of the 
ability of a child restraint to adequately restrain children 
recommended for the restraint, as compared to testing done with only 
the 3-year-old dummy. Beginning in September 1996, any child restraint 
recommended for children weighing over 18 kg must be able to comply 
with the standard when tested with the 6-year-old child dummy (60 FR 
35126, July 6, 1995; 60 FR 63651, December 12, 1995).
    Comments from manufacturers and others on the proposal to use the 
6-year-old dummy in compliance tests did not indicate that shield 
boosters manufactured at the time of the rulemaking could not comply. 
To the extent there were any shield boosters that could not pass the 
standard's requirements with the 6-year-old dummy, NHTSA anticipated 
that manufacturers might (1) design their seats to achieve compliance 
(such as by raising the height of the shield relative to the child's 
torso), (2) label shield boosters as being suitable for children 
weighing less than 18 kg (and thus avoid testing with the 6-year-old 
dummy), or (3) replace production of shield boosters with belt-
positioning boosters. While the latter two responses to the final rule 
have occurred, manufacturers have not redesigned shield boosters to 
pass Standard 213 with the 6-year-old dummy. Thus, the shield boosters 
manufactured today are not recommended for use with the shield by 
children over 18 kg.

B. The Petition

    On December 4, 1997, Ms. Kathleen Weber of the University of 
Michigan Child Passenger Protection Research Program, submitted a 
petition for rulemaking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems'' (49 CFR 571.213). The petition, 
which NHTSA granted on January 30, 1998, concerns the manufacture of 
child restraints that can be used by families in pre-1989 model year 
vehicles. These vehicles are permitted to have only lap belts in rear 
seating positions.
    The petitioner suggests that Standard 213 be amended to allow--

    Child restraint systems to be certified for children who weigh 
between 18 and 23 kg using a top tether if the restraint meets 
current FMVSS 213 test criteria (using the Part 572:I 6-year dummy) 
when secured by a lap belt and top tether strap, as long as the same 
restraint can be certified for children under 18 kg (using the Part 
572:C 3-year dummy) without a tether.

    The petitioner notes that--

this would allow the ``hybrid'' toddler/booster restraints (forward 
facing with internal harness/high-back belt-positioning

[[Page 16204]]

booster) to be used by a [20 kg] 45 lb child in the toddler mode 
with its internal harness and installed with a lap belt and top 
tether strap.

    An example of such a ``hybrid'' seat is Century's Breverra booster 
car seat, which is recommended for children 14 to 45 kg (30 to 100 lb). 
The Breverra has a removable 5-point harness system. When used with 
children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb), the Breverra is used with the 5-
point harness, and the restraint is secured to the vehicle seat by 
either a Type I or Type II belt. This configuration (using the 
restraint system with children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb), and 
restraining them with the internal 5-point harness) is what the 
petitioner refers to as the ``toddler mode.'' The Breverra is also 
designed for use as a belt-positioning booster seat with children 14 to 
45 kg (30 to 100 lb). Parents are instructed to remove the 5--point 
harness from the booster seat, and to use the vehicle's Type II belt to 
restrain the child. Because seats such as the Breverra are designed for 
use both as a ``toddler seat'' and as a ``belt-positioning booster 
seat,'' the petitioner refers to them as ``hybrid'' restraints.
    The petitioner seeks to permit child restraints to be certified as 
meeting the standard when recommended for children up to 20 kg (45 lb) 
in the toddler mode (using the 5-point harness, attached to the vehicle 
by lap belt). Currently, restraints recommended for children up to 20 
kg are tested with the 6-year-old dummy. At the time the petition was 
submitted, child restraints were required to limit head excursion to a 
maximum of 813 mm (32 inches (in)) when tested dynamically in a 
simulated 30 mph frontal crash in accordance with Standard 213. Because 
of the increased height and higher center of gravity of the 6-year-old 
dummy as compared to the 3-year-old dummy, convertible and hybrid 
restraints were not typically able to meet the 813-mm head excursion 
limit when tested with the 6-year-old dummy in the toddler mode (using 
the 5-point harness), untethered. As the basis for the petition, the 
petitioner presumes they could meet the 813-mm limit when tethered.
    The effect of the petition would be to eliminate the requirement 
for child restraints to meet the 813-mm head excursion requirement when 
tested with the 6-year-old dummy, untethered, as long as the same 
restraint meets the 813-mm head excursion limit when tested with a 
tether attached. Further, the petitioner suggests that the same 
restraints should be required to meet all of Standard 213's 
requirements with the 3-year-old dummy untethered. Petitioner states:

    Requiring restraints to meet the dynamic test criteria without a 
tether using the 3-year dummy is somewhat consistent with the 
``misuse'' test formerly required by the standard for restraints 
equipped with top tether straps . . .

C. Changes Regarding Tether and Head Excursion Requirements

    At the time of the petition, NHTSA did not require a tether on 
child restraints or a tether anchorage on vehicles. The agency did not 
prohibit a tether, but generally required child restraints to meet 
Standard 213's 48 km/hr (30 mph) dynamic testing requirements without 
attaching a tether to reflect the historically low use rate of tethers 
in this country in vehicles that did not have factory-equipped tether 
anchors. As such, all child restraints recommended for use by children 
weighing under 22.7 kg (50 pounds) (the limit of Standard 213) were 
required to limit head excursion to a maximum of 813 mm in the dynamic 
test.
    As noted above, nonuse of the tether has been a problem in the U.S. 
In an effort to boost use rates, NHTSA once proposed requiring all 
vehicles under 4536 kg (10,000 lb) GVWR to have tether anchorages at 
all rearmost seating positions, to make it possible for motorists to 
easily attach the tether straps on their child restraints to the 
vehicle (45 FR 81625; December 11, 1980). At the time of the proposal, 
tether use was about 50 percent. NHTSA terminated rulemaking on this 
proposal after determining that (a) since the proposal, there was a 
continual shift toward untethered seats, so that most seats did not 
need a tether to meet Standard 213's requirements; (b) motor vehicle 
manufacturers had increasingly been voluntarily providing provisions, 
such as indentations to identify anchorage points and pre-drilled or 
threaded holes to facilitate the attachment of tether straps; and (c) 
the most effective way to promote child safety would be to amend 
Standard 213 to require all child restraints to meet Standard 213's 
requirements without attachment of the tether (50 FR 27632; July 5, 
1985).
    As part of the agency's development of Standard 225, ``Child 
Restraint Anchorage Systems,'' NHTSA concluded that a top tether should 
be provided to better secure child restraints. By restraining the top 
portion of a child seat, a tether would supplement the vehicle belt 
system in limiting forward movement of the child restraint in a crash. 
With less forward movement, head excursion could be reduced. However, 
instead of expressly requiring child restraints to have a top tether 
strap, NHTSA established a performance requirement that has the 
practical effect of requiring a tether on child restraints. NHTSA 
established a new head excursion requirement for forward-facing child 
restraints that limits excursion to 720 mm (28.35 inches) forward of 
the Z-point on the FMVSS No. 213 test seat assembly when a child 
restraint is attached to the standard seat assembly in accordance with 
the manufacturer's recommendations. To meet this requirement, 
manufacturers provide a top tether, which is attached in the test for 
this new requirement. The agency felt that the head excursion limit of 
720 mm was practicable with a tether because it is the same as a 
Canadian requirement and because most, if not all, child restraint 
manufacturers currently produce child restraints for sale in Canada and 
thus already meet the requirements for those products.
    NHTSA concluded however, that tethers would be much more likely to 
be used if child seats are equipped with a tether and if vehicles are 
equipped with a factory-installed, easy- and ready-to-use tether 
anchorage. Citing experience with respect to higher tether use rates in 
Australia and Canada where factory installed tether anchorages and/or 
tether hardware are available, NHTSA required vehicle manufacturers to 
begin installing factory-installed, user-ready tether anchorages (with 
hardware) in new vehicles beginning September 1, 1999.

II. NHTSA Conducts Test Program To Evaluate Performance of Child 
Restraints in Limiting Head Excursion of 6-Year-Old Dummy

    NHTSA conducted a test program at our Vehicle Research and Test 
Center (VRTC) in March 1998, to evaluate the performance of various 
types of child restraints in restricting the amount of head excursion 
of the 6-year-old dummy. In developing this test program, NHTSA asked 
child restraint manufacturers and the National Transportation Safety 
Board (NTSB) for suggestions as to which approaches and products should 
be evaluated. One objective of this test program was to obtain baseline 
information on the dynamic performance of a ``typical'' shield-type 
booster seat, tested with the 6-year-old dummy while secured to the 
vehicle seat by a lap belt only. It was presumed that this type of seat 
was unable to meet the 813 mm head excursion requirement of Standard 
213, and had therefore resulted in child restraint manufacturers 
limiting these restraints to use for children weighing no more than 18 
kg. Pre-test discussions

[[Page 16205]]

with restraint manufacturers confirmed that Standard 213's head injury 
criterion (HIC), chest acceleration, and knee excursion parameters did 
not pose concerns when testing this type of restraint with the 6-year-
old dummy. Rather, because of the increase in height and weight of the 
6-year-old dummy as compared to the 3-year-old dummy--1168 versus 965 
mm standing height (46 versus 38 inches), and 22 versus 15 kg in weight 
(48 versus 33 lb)--the standard's head excursion limit was the issue. 
The shield portion of the restraint apparently does not provide 
adequate upper torso restraint to limit the head excursion within 
acceptable limits when subjected to Standard 213's dynamic test. NHTSA 
chose the Cosco Grand Explorer as a representative shield-type booster 
for the baseline test.
    The test program also evaluated a combination forward-facing 
toddler/high-back belt-positioning booster seat, utilizing its internal 
5-point harness, secured to the vehicle seat by a lap belt and a top 
tether. This represented the specific configuration recommended in the 
Weber petition. NHTSA chose the Century Breverra, which comes with an 
optional top tether, as a representative seat for the test program.
    NHTSA also tested two convertible seats. Pre-test conversations 
with restraint manufacturers indicated that there may be some 
convertible restraints that are equipped with tethers which may also 
perform adequately when attached to the vehicle seat with a lap belt 
only, when restraining the 6-year-old dummy. Not all convertible 
restraints were equipped with a top tether strap at the time, and not 
all convertible restraints were able to accommodate the 6-year-old 
dummy. Britax Child Safety, Inc. indicated that they manufactured two 
convertible restraints, the ``Roundabout'' with a standard top tether 
and the ``Elite'' with an optional top tether attachment, which they 
felt would perform satisfactorily in a crash test with the 6-year-old 
dummy when the restraint was secured to the vehicle seat by a lap belt 
and top tether. Accordingly, NHTSA included both of the Britax 
convertible restraints in the subject test program.
    At the time of the test program, the only commercially available 
products marketed specifically for children weighing over 18 kg and 
secured with a lap belt only were the 86-Y-harness and vest systems 
produced by E-Z-On Products. Both of these systems required the use of 
a top tether. The 86-Y harness system consisted of two shoulder straps 
extending from the top tether anchorage, and looped ends to allow the 
vehicle lap belt to be routed through and fastened over the pelvic 
area. The vest system functioned similarly, with a single strap 
extending from the top tether anchorage that split into two separate 
straps with hardware that attached to rings located on each shoulder of 
the vest, and the vehicle lap belt threaded through web loops on the 
bottom of each side of the vest. Both the 86-Y harness and the vest 
systems were included in the test program for evaluation.
    The dynamic sled tests were conducted at VRTC, and were based on 
the test conditions and procedures prescribed in S6 of Standard No. 
213. This test program was intended for research only and did not 
precisely replicate compliance testing. The VRTC tests evaluated the 
ability of the restraints at limiting head excursion, HIC, chest 
acceleration, and knee excursion. The test conditions were fixed 
throughout the sled test series, with the only variable being the 
particular restraint being tested and its attachment method (i.e. 
tethered or untethered). With the exception of the baseline test 
utilizing the shield booster seat, each restraint was tested in each 
attachment configuration on two separate sled runs. Two identical 
shield boosters were tested, but on the same sled run rather than 
separate sled runs as with the other restraints.
    All tests were conducted using the 6-year-old dummy, and each of 
the restraints--whether tethered or untethered--was attached to the 
vehicle test seat using a lap belt only. At that time, Standard 213's 
limits were as follows: HIC--1000; chest acceleration--60g; head 
excursion--813 mm; and knee excursion--914 mm (36 in).\3\ The full test 
results are provided in Table 1. It is important to note that in each 
of the tests conducted, values for both the HIC and chest acceleration 
parameters were typically significantly below the established limits 
prescribed in Standard 213, and none exceeded the maximum allowable 
limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As noted in Section I(C) above, the agency subsequently 
established a new head excursion limit of 720 mm for forward-facing 
child restraints that limits excursion. A tether strap may be 
attached in this test, but child restraints must also meet the 
previous limit of 813 mm without the tether strap attached.

                            Table 1.--Summary of Sled Test Results for All Restraints
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Restraint configuration                  HIC       3 ms chest      Head         Knee
-------------------------------------------------------------   clip (G)    excursion    excursion
                                                             -------------     (mm)         (mm)       Test No.
              FMVSS No. 213 limit                    1000                 --------------------------
                                                                   60          813          914
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosco Grand Explorer Lap Belt w/Sm. Shield.....          424         32.9          698          614        UMP01
Cosco Grand Explorer Lap Belt w/Sm. Shield.....          417         32.2          749          660        UMP02
Century Breverra Contour/5-pt. Harness Lap Belt          332         38.9          760          904        UMP03
 w/Top Tether..................................
Century Breverra Contour/5-pt. Harness Lap               273         30.8          851          926        UMP04
 Belt; No Top Tether...........................
Century Breverra Contour/5-pt. Harness Lap Belt          307         40.5          719          881        UMP05
 w/Top Tether..................................
Century Breverra Contour/5-pt. Harness Lap               243         50.2           NA           NA        UMP06
 Belt; No Top Tether*..........................
E-Z ON 86-Y Harness Lap Belt w/Top Tether......          463         52.5          495          540        UMP07
E-Z ON 103Z Vest Lap Belt w/Top Tether.........          702         59.3          558          636        UMP08
E-Z ON 86-Y Harness Lap Belt w/Top Tether......          461         52.9          474          540        UMP09
E-Z ON 103Z Vest Lap Belt w/Adj. CAM-Wrap......          315         35.9          713          598        UMP10
Britax Roundabout Lap Belt w/Top Tether........          270         42.3          623          799        UMP11
Britax Roundabout Lap Belt; No Top Tether......          477         39.3          810          896        UMP12
Britax Roundabout Lap Belt w/Top Tether........          303         43.4          574          736        UMP13
Britax Roundabout Lap Belt; No Top Tether......          425         36.1          795          864        UMP14
Britax Elite Lap Belt w/Top Tether.............          554         51.2          640          782        UMP15
Britax Elite Lap Belt; No Top Tether...........          377         39.2          820          868        UMP16
Britax Elite Lap Belt w/Top Tether.............          614         58.9          580          720        UMP17
Britax Elite Lap Belt; No Top Tether...........          377         43.1          822          878        UMP18

[[Page 16206]]

 
Century Breverra Contour/5-pt. Harness Lap               299         31.2          844          918        UMP19
 Belt; No Top Tether (Repeat of UMP............                                                       (Repeat of
                                                                                                         UMP06)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*HIC based on head contact w/CRS as dummy slipped out of failed 5-pt. harness.

    While NHTSA anticipated that shield-type boosters could not meet 
the 813-mm head excursion limit of the standard when tested with the 6-
year-old dummy, test results showed that when tested in this 
configuration, the Cosco Grand Explorer shield booster seats used for 
the baseline testing satisfactorily limited head excursion to under 762 
mm (30 inches) in both instances. In addition, knee excursion was 
measured to be 254 to 300 mm (10 to 12 inches) below the 914 mm limit. 
As these head and knee excursion measurements were in direct contrast 
with the Calspan and VRTC studies conducted in support of NHTSA's ISTEA 
rulemakings on booster seats, NHTSA conducted a second set of testing 
to evaluate three other then-available shield-type booster seats (the 
Gerry Double Guard, Evenflo Sidekick, and Fisher Price T-Shield). As 
before, each seat was tested twice, on separate test runs, to enhance 
the repeatability of the test results. In each instance, the measured 
head excursion significantly exceeded the 813 mm limit of Standard 213, 
ranging from 874 to 1016 mm (34.5 to 40.0 inches). The measured knee 
excursion was well within the FMVSS No. 213 limit of 914 mm in each of 
these tests, ranging from 749 mm to 838 mm (29.5 to 33 inches). These 
results more closely paralleled those recorded in the earlier tests 
conducted by Calspan and VRTC. Full test results are provided in Table 
2.

                                    Table 2.--Additional Shield Booster Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Restraint configuration                  HIC       3 ms chest      Head         Knee
-------------------------------------------------------------   clip (G)    excursion    excursion
                                                             -------------     (mm)         (mm)       Test No.
              FMVSS No. 213 limit                    1000                 --------------------------
                                                                   60          813          214
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Double Guard Lap Belt w/sm. Shield.......          748         35.8          980          826        UMP21
Evenflo Sidekick Lap Belt w/sm. Shield.........          721         37.8          874          762        UMP22
Fisher Price T-Shield Lap Belt w/sm. Shield....          349         26.1          927          767        UMP23
Evenflo Sidekick Lap Belt w/sm. Shield.........          820         35.9          876          749        UMP24
Gerry Double Guard Lap Belt w/sm. Shield.......          780         34.6         1016          838        UMP25
Fisher Price T-Shield Lap Belt w/sm. Shield....          525         31.5          955          785        UMP26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the baseline tests with the shield-type booster seats, 
the agency tested the Century Breverra hybrid booster both with and 
without the top tether strap. In the tethered configuration, head 
excursion was measured to be below 762 mm (30 inches), and knee 
excursion was measured to be below the 914 mm limit (although only 
marginally in one instance at 904 mm). However, in each of the test 
runs conducted using the untethered configuration, head and knee 
excursions beyond the respective 813 and 914 mm limits were measured, 
with marginal reductions in both the HIC and chest acceleration 
parameters. It should be noted that a total of three test runs were 
conducted using the untethered configuration, as the test dummy slipped 
out of the child restraint during the second test run due to a failure 
of the 5-point harness, voiding the measurement of head and knee 
excursion. Interestingly, a comparison between the untethered shield-
type boosters used in the baseline testing and the tethered hybrid 
booster (forward facing with internal harness/high-back belt-
positioning booster) indicates that the untethered shield booster 
performs marginally better (on average) with respect to limiting head 
excursion and significantly better with respect to limiting knee 
excursion than the hybrid booster.
    Two convertible restraints were evaluated in the same manner, first 
with a top tether strap attached and then without. In the tethered 
configuration, the Britax Roundabout limited head excursion to 622 and 
574 mm (24.5 and 22.6 inches) in the two tests performed, well below 
the 813 mm limit prescribed in the standard and also well below the 
results observed in the baseline test with the shield-type booster. 
Knee excursion measurements were also well below the established limit. 
However, whereas the untethered hybrid toddler/booster restraint 
configuration resulted in unacceptable head and knee excursions, the 
untethered Roundabout configuration limited both head and knee 
excursion within acceptable limits (although only marginally with 
respect to head excursion in the first test at 810.26 mm (31.90 
inches)). Additionally, while the untethered hybrid toddler/booster 
restraint tests resulted in reduced HIC and chest acceleration 
measurements, the untethered Roundabout tests resulted in reduced chest 
acceleration measurements but increased HIC values.
    The second convertible restraint, the Britax Elite, demonstrated 
similar results. In the tethered configuration, head excursion was 
limited to 640 and 580 mm (25.2 and 22.85 inches) in the two tests 
performed, again well below the 813 mm limit prescribed in the standard 
and also well below the results observed in the baseline test with the 
shield-type booster. Knee excursion measurements were also well below 
the established limit. However, each of the tests conducted in the 
untethered configuration resulted in head excursion measurements that 
marginally (820 and 821 mm) (32.29 and 32.35 inches)

[[Page 16207]]

exceed the 813 mm limit, while knee excursion measurements remained 
within acceptable limits.
    The two different E-Z On products, the 86-Y harness and the vest, 
were the only products marketed for children over 18 kg that do not 
require the use of a shoulder harness to attach to the vehicle. Both of 
these systems require the use of a tether. Test results show that the 
86-Y harness system dramatically limited head excursion to 495 and 474 
mm (19.5 and 18.65 inches) on the two tests, or approximately 33 
percent below the 813 mm limit prescribed in the standard, and 
significantly below the other tethered systems. Knee excursion was also 
limited to values well below established limits.
    E-Z On markets two different styles of the vest system. The first 
is an adjustable vest, which can be adjusted for fit as the child grows 
via three different zipper locations on the back of the vest. This was 
not used in this test program, as the vest, when configured in its 
smallest size, was still too large to properly fit the 6-year-old test 
dummy. E-Z On also manufactures fitted or custom vests, provided to the 
consumer based on anatomical measurements of the child as provided to 
E-Z On. NHTSA utilized a fitted vest in this testing program, although 
it should be noted that the vest provided by the manufacturer for this 
testing was very tight on the 6-year-old dummy, and the next larger 
size would likely have provided a better fit. The E-Z On vest system 
was tested utilizing a top tether strap. The head and knee excursion 
values were both well below established limits. The chest acceleration 
was 59.3 g, marginally below the limit of 60 g. This high value for 
chest acceleration may be partially attributable to the very snug fit 
of the vest on the test dummy.

III. Comments Received

    On July 7, 1999, NHTSA published a Request for Comment (64 FR 
36657) to obtain information that would aid in determining whether 
Standard 213 should be amended as proposed by the petitioner. Following 
publication of the notice, the petitioner wrote the agency and 
expressed concern that the issues raised in the petition had been 
misinterpreted and/or misstated in the notice (Docket No. 99-5891-8). 
The petitioner felt that the text of the notice wrongly suggested that 
the petitioner offered tethered booster seats as an option to properly 
restrain children weighing more than 18 kg in seating positions 
equipped with only lap belts. The petitioner emphasized that the 
proposal would permit manufacturers to certify any child restraint 
system--not only boosters--for weights up to 20.4 kg (45 lb) if those 
restraints could meet the requirements of Standard 213 when tested with 
the 6-year-old dummy with the use of a tether.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The petitioner requested that a follow-up notice be 
published to clarify the intent of the petition, as she felt that 
commenters to the original notice would be misled by the perceived 
misstatement of the issues. NHTSA reviewed the text of the original 
notice, and concluded that the issues raised in the petition had 
been sufficiently and clearly presented, and that a follow-up notice 
was unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency received comments from child restraint manufacturers 
(Fisher-Price\5\, E-Z-On, Cosco), auto manufacturers and associated 
trade organizations (Ford, NADA), child passenger safety advocate 
groups (SafetyBeltSafe USA, National Safe Kids Campaign), the medical 
community (AAP, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia(CHOP)), the 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and eight individuals. 
Generally, commenters (1) agreed that appropriate restraints need to be 
developed to facilitate the proper protection of children above 40 
pounds in vehicles equipped with only lap belts; (2) differed on 
whether they feel tether use will improve over that documented by the 
agency in the past, with many feeling that the introduction of FMVSS 
225 will prompt an increased awareness about the benefits of tether 
use, and therefore, increase tether usage; and (3) noted that while 
alternative means of protecting older children are currently available 
(i.e., vest and harness systems, retrofit shoulder belts) that these 
alternatives are often costly and/or difficult to obtain via 
traditional retail avenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Fisher-Price no longer manufactures or markets child 
restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The request for comments posed a number of questions that asked for 
comments and data on specific issues relating to the petition. 
Responses to these questions are summarized as follows:
    Question 1: How likely are tethers to be used in vehicles that lack 
user-ready tether anchorages? NHTSA noted that tether use in vehicles 
not originally equipped with tether anchorages has been very low in 
this country, and asked if there are data showing that tether use in 
such vehicles will be greater than it has been in the past. Donald and 
Roberta Wegeng replied stating:

    Past evidence would suggest that tethers are not likely to be 
used in this case. However, we believe that this trend will change 
as parents become more aware of the need to use tethers. Recently 
there has been a tremendous amount of media attention given to the 
safe use of child restraints. More and more parents are having their 
installations checked by qualified inspectors. With the recent rule 
change that requires all new cars to have user-ready tether 
anchorages, even more attention will be given to this subject.

Fisher-Price, Cosco, and CHOP all generally supported the Wegengs' 
position with respect to the use of tethers in instances where the 
anchorage hardware was not provided as standard equipment on the 
vehicle. Cosco noted that the number of requests they receive for 
tethers through their Consumer Relations Department is currently ``less 
than overwhelming.'' Fisher-Price provided detailed insight into their 
experience regarding child restraints equipped with tether straps at a 
time where tether anchorages were not required to be installed in 
vehicles:

    We believe that tether use will be limited until the passenger 
vehicle fleet in the field today is replaced by vehicles which came 
from the factory with tether anchors already installed.
    Fisher-Price has the unique viewpoint as the only U.S. child 
seat manufacturer who has recent experience with tethers. In 1997, 
we provided a tether on our 79700 Safe Embrace Convertible Car Seat 
because the increased performance of a tether was consistent with 
our objective to provide a safer seat than what the market had to 
offer. The product launched with a retail price of $140 in a sea of 
competitive offerings where the mass volumes occurred at a $80 price 
point. We consider our consumers who justified the additional 
expense to be among the most safety conscientious.
    In an effort to promote the use of the tether, several 
provisions were made to encourage the installation of the tether 
anchor: A universal tether anchor kit with installation instructions 
was provided with every product; A collaborative program was 
established with nationwide Goodyear service centers who provided 
free tether anchor installation; An enveloped letter, addressed to 
``vehicle dealer'' which explained what a tether was and what 
hardware and service was required for anchor installation, written 
on behalf of our consumer, was provided with each product; Our 
consumer affairs personnel were trained to answer anchor 
installation questions, were enabled to provide vehicle 
manufacturer's anchor kit part numbers and stocked and provided 
free-of-charge vehicle manufacturer anchor kits to consumers who 
were unable to get a kit on their own. Despite these efforts and an 
assumed higher level of safety conscientiousness, a recent random 
survey of approximately 200 of our U.S. consumers identified only 58 
percent used the tether.
    Tether anchor installation requires action on the part of a 
consumer, who is consumed with other parental responsibilities, may 
not appreciate the performance benefit, does not anticipate 
involvement in an accident, and is generally reluctant to modify 
their vehicle. Today's family vehicle of choice is the minivan. In 
most minivans, vehicle manufacturers provide means for tether

[[Page 16208]]

anchorage in the third row seat only. Parents may have to forgo the 
tether attachment option if they desire to have the child located in 
the second row, closer to the driver.
    We do not believe at this point and time that tethers will be 
greatly used by the general car seat user population. Therefore, 
allowance of the certification of a child safety seat whose 
performance is solely dependent on the tether is not in the best 
interest of child safety. As factory-installed tether anchors become 
more prevalent in vehicles on the road, we expect that tether usage 
will increase.

    Question 2: Is a child better off in an untethered booster or 
seated directly on the vehicle seat and restrained by a lap belt? Are 
there alternative approaches? Citing Fatality Analysis Reporting System 
(FARS) and Multiple Cause of Death (MCOD) data from 1988 through mid-
1997, the agency noted that (1) children 5-14 appear to derive the 
greatest incremental benefit from using back seat lap/shoulder belts 
rather than just a lap belt when compared to the other age and sex 
groups evaluated in the study, (2) children ages 5-14 do not have an 
increased risk of abdominal injuries compared to occupants in other age 
groups, but (3) the head injury rate for the same children, seated in 
the back seat in frontal crashes restrained by a lap belt only, is 
double that of those children restrained with a lap and shoulder belt 
(and thus provided with upper torso protection similar to what could be 
expected through the use of child restraint systems).
    The agency asked for information regarding ``lap belt syndrome,'' 
which refers to bruising across the abdomen, internal injuries and 
lower spine fractures which, allegedly, are caused mainly by a lap belt 
that is used incorrectly or that moves off the child's pelvis during a 
crash. The agency also requested comment on approaches that would 
eliminate, or alternatively, extend the existing limit on head 
excursion when testing child restraints with the 6-year-old dummy, 
untethered. Most commenters felt that an untethered child restraint 
would be preferable to a lap belt only for children, but generally did 
not have specific data to support their position. Rather, commenters 
noted that child restraints would provide some measure of upper torso 
protection, as compared to none with lap belts only. Cosco and CHOP 
stated that FARS data is probably not an adequate source for making a 
judgement, in that this data source only includes fatal crashes and 
cannot provide estimates for child exposure to non-fatal or non-injury 
crashes. CHOP noted:

    We cannot answer this question without more study. We need more 
evidence that the use of lap belt only restraint systems by young 
children does not significantly increase the incidence of abdominal 
injuries over lap shoulder belted children * * * It is difficult to 
assess the risk of abdominal injuries through laboratory testing 
since current child dummies are not equipped to measure abdominal 
loads. Computer simulations are a useful tool to compare relative 
injury measures and should be utilized to address this issue.
    Wearing a lap belt only, however, dramatically increases the 
risk of head injuries and as a result, is an unacceptable option. An 
untethered booster, in contrast, still provides some degree of upper 
body restraint.

    Both child restraint manufacturers, Fisher-Price and Cosco, along 
with the AAP, opposed increasing the head excursion limit when testing 
with the 6-year-old dummy untethered. Fisher-Price stated that 
``increasing the head excursion limit to 34'' based on what is possible 
with current products does not seem appropriate without first 
determining what is a safe limit for the older/taller child in today's 
vehicles.''
    Question 3: Should the test that evaluates child restraint 
performance without attaching the tether be deleted for all restraints, 
not just hybrid toddler/booster restraints? Should the test be deleted 
when testing with dummies other than the 6-year-old? NHTSA asked, if 
the agency would consider deleting the head excursion requirement for 
hybrid boosters when testing with the 6-year-old dummy untethered, 
should the same requirements be similarly revised when testing other 
types of restraints (i.e., convertible child restraints) or testing 
with other dummies (i.e., the 3-year-old dummy)? Donald and Roberta 
Wegeng, Fisher-Price, Cosco, AAP, and CHOP all opposed deleting the 
untethered test currently required by Standard 213. The AAP noted:

    The untethered restraint performance requirement should not be 
rescinded for other restraints or for testing with other dummies. 
Such a change is not necessary and the current testing should be 
retained for optimal safety. The petitioner's proposal is necessary 
at this time only to enhance safety for a specific group of children 
until all vehicles have lap/shoulder harnesses.

    Ford provided differing viewpoints in its comments, stating, in 
part:

    Ford strongly supports deleting the untethered test for all 
types of child restraints when tested with the 6-year-old dummy, not 
just hybrid or harness boosters. If there are convertible restraints 
that fit and protect a 6-year-old child, such as the tested Britax 
Roundabout, our customers should have the option to use that 
available protection. That option should also be available for 
vehicles equipped with ISOFIX anchors.
    Ford also supports deletion of the untethered test for other 
dummies, but timing for such a change is not critical. We have 
repeatedly suggested that testing with only lap belts, using the 
FMVSS 213 standard seat, is no longer appropriate to today's 
vehicles. Added tests with tether straps, ISOFIX anchors, and 
additional dummies are increasing the test burden of the child 
restraint industry.
    Ford prefers deletion of the untethered 6-year-old dummy test to 
the Notice's suggestion of an increased head excursion limit for an 
untethered test with a 6-year-old dummy. Any child restraint for 
children over 40 pounds must soon meet the head excursion criteria 
in two tethered tests with the 6-year-old dummy, one with a lap belt 
and tether and another with ISOFIX anchors and a tether. Adding two 
additional 6-year-old dummy untethered tests (with lap belt only and 
with ISOFIX only) adds an unnecessary test burden to the child 
restraint manufacturers, and may discourage offering harness 
boosters for children up to 50 pounds.

    Question 4: Why are shield boosters no longer manufactured for 
children weighing over 18 kg (40 lb)? NHTSA requested information, 
particularly from child restraint manufacturers, concerning the reasons 
shield-type booster seats are no longer marketed for children weighing 
more than 18 kg. The two manufacturers that responded, Fisher-Price and 
Cosco presented differing viewpoints regarding the performance of 
shield boosters. Fisher-Price stated:

    Our version of the shielded booster marketed in the early 90's 
could not, without modification, pass the revised requirements for 
the 6-year-old dummy. Rather than invest in the proliferation of the 
``back-less'' booster, we felt that greater levels of performance, 
more consistent to our goal of marketing safer car seats, was better 
achieved with a high back belt positioning booster configuration.

    On the other hand, Cosco provided the following:

    The current certification test bench, while desirable for 
continuity, familiarity, and comparison, was never intended for 
testing backless booster seats with the 6-year-old dummy. The 
current set-up has some anomalies, which may cause excessive HIC 
readings on rebound after the test is essentially over that prevent 
booster seats from passing the standard with the 6-year-old dummy. 
In the real world, shield boosters, of which literally millions have 
been sold, perform very well. We believe the March 1998 VRTC tests 
conducted by NHTSA at a facility, using the same methodology but not 
designated for compliance testing is more indicative of actual 
performance of shield boosters.

    Question 5: What is the feasibility of redesigning hybrid/toddler 
booster

[[Page 16209]]

restraints such that the restraint can be certified for use with older 
children, without the use of a tether? Both Fisher-Price and Cosco 
commented that it may be possible to design a child restraint 
appropriate for older children that can be certified under Standard 
213's 813-mm head excursion limits without the use of a tether. Ford, 
however, was critical of the suggestion that hybrid/toddler boosters be 
redesigned to meet the requirements of Standard 213 using a 6-year-old 
dummy untethered, stating:

    What is the point of redesigning hybrid boosters (or other child 
restraints) to meet an arbitrary head excursion limit when tested in 
an artificial sled test at the center of a front bench seat 
replicating an obsolete vehicle equipped with a lap belt that is now 
highly atypical? * * * Child restraint manufacturers should 
concentrate on improving performance when child restraints are 
installed in rear seats and restrained by typical lap/shoulder belts 
or ISOFIX anchors, plus top tethers. Lap-only belts are rapidly 
disappearing from new cars, and many millions of vehicles on the 
road have no lap-only belts * * * Tethers will soon be installed on 
all new forward-facing harness restraints. All Ford products built 
in the last 15 years have tether anchorages, and new vehicles will 
soon have built-in tether anchors. Child restraint regulations 
should permit customers to make the best use of this safety 
equipment to protect their children, even if some customers may not 
be able to, or may choose not to, use the restraint to its full 
capacity.

    Question 6: Is the suggested amendment warranted when there are 
products now available for older children that may perform better than 
a tethered seat at limiting head excursion? E-Z-On Products, Inc. 
manufactures vest and harness restraint systems for use with a lap belt 
and tether. Vests and harnesses are ``child restraint systems'' under 
Standard 213 and are certified as meeting all requirements of the 
standard. NHTSA's March 1998 test program evaluated the performance of 
E-Z-On's products in limiting the amount of head excursion of the 6-
year-old dummy. In brief, the tethered vest and harness performed much 
better than the tethered hybrid booster or tethered convertible 
restraint at limiting head excursion. Based on this, NHTSA noted that 
vests and harnesses could address the petitioner's concerns and provide 
a viable alternative to consumers. However, NHTSA noted that because 
the vest and harness systems do not ``look like'' traditional child 
restraint systems, they might not be as readily accepted by some 
consumers as a tethered hybrid or convertible seat might be. NHTSA 
requested input regarding the performance and public acceptance of the 
E-Z-On devices.
    Comments submitted by Ford and Fisher-Price acknowledge that data 
from NHTSA's testing of the E-Z-On products demonstrate the ability of 
those products to provide adequate restraint in lap belt only seating 
positions (with a tether). However, Ford, Fisher-Price, Donald and 
Roberta Wegeng, Cosco, AAP, and CHOP all cite various concerns 
regarding the availability and/or acceptance of the E-Z-On products, 
which in turn, leads the commenters to conclude that the vest and 
harness systems should not be relied on as the preferred method by 
which to restrain children in lap belt only equipped seating positions. 
Specifically, Ford (``these products have been available for many 
years, and have not achieved significant acceptance, except for niche 
markets''); Fisher-Price (``the convenience of vest and harness 
systems, however, leaves much to be desired''); Donald and Roberta 
Wegeng (``the products that are currently available are not readily or 
easily available''); Cosco (``the products cited can be expensive and 
are not available at retail, where most people shop for car seats''); 
AAP (``we are not aware of any evidence to indicate that a tether would 
more likely be used with a vest than with a hybrid booster''); and CHOP 
(``the E-Z-On vest and Y harness are not easily obtained by parents and 
do not look like traditional child restraints and as a result, may not 
be readily accepted by consumers'') all provided information supporting 
the adoption of alternative solutions to vest and harness systems as a 
means by which to address the concerns of the petitioner. Further, 
Cosco and CHOP both noted that while the E-Z-On products were very 
effective in limiting head and knee excursion of the dummies during the 
dynamic testing, the tethered hybrid boosters and convertible 
restraints that were tested generally performed better than the E-Z-On 
products with respect to HIC and chest acceleration parameters.
    Question 7: Would adoption of the suggested amendment 
inappropriately encourage some parents to position restraints in the 
center rear seating position? Petitioner only addressed the need of 
consumers with pre-1989 vehicles, but adoption of the suggested 
amendment could also affect the preference of parents who wish to 
install a booster seat in the center rear position (which is typically 
equipped with only a lap belt). NHTSA and others have long supported 
the placement of children in child restraints in the center rear 
seating position, when possible, to minimize the number and severity of 
injuries in side impact crashes. However, optimal performance of the 
restraint, if the suggested proposal were adopted, is dependent on 
attachment of the tether. An untethered seat in the center rear seat is 
unlikely to perform as effectively as an untethered belt-positioning 
booster used at the outboard seating position with a lap and shoulder 
belt. NHTSA requested comments regarding whether adoption of the 
proposed amendment might further confuse the public regarding the 
correct restraint choice and/or seating location for children weighing 
more than 18 kg.
    The AAP responded, stating:

    The proposed change might encourage some parents to position 
restraints in the center-rear seating position, but this would not 
be a bad choice if the hybrid booster were properly tethered. We do 
not think the proposed change would increase the likelihood of 
inappropriate positioning of the hybrid seat in the toddler mode due 
to a desire to use a center seat without a lap/shoulder harness; 
caretakers can make that same mistake now with the hybrid product.

    Other commenters offered varying opinions. Ford commented that 
``this is not a significant concern,'' while Fisher-Price noted that 
``if a new misuse scenario is created, then obviously misuse potential 
increases.''
    Question 8: What is the feasibility of retrofitting a rear seat 
shoulder belt in pre-1989 vehicles? NHTSA noted that many vehicle 
manufacturers offer shoulder belt retrofit kits for rear seating 
positions, although availability and cost of these kits tend to vary 
widely. We also noted that installation of a shoulder belt can benefit 
children who have completely outgrown a child restraint, and can also 
benefit adults. NHTSA requested comments regarding these retrofit kits.
    Ford provided the following, specific to their vehicles:

    Installing accessory rear seat shoulder belts is practicable in 
most Ford passenger cars, but not in trucks. Ford has encouraged 
installation of rear seat shoulder belts, which provide safety 
benefits for a wide range of rear seat occupants. Ford has an ample 
supply of accessory kits available for nearly all cars built during 
the 1980's. The kits include two black shoulder belts and all 
necessary hardware and instructions for only $53. The labor time 
standard for installation in most sedans is 0.8 hours, so dealer 
installation should cost about $50. Installation in hatchbacks and 
station wagons is somewhat more complicated and time-consuming. Ford 
also prepared do-it-yourself installation manuals with step-by-step 
photographs for consumer installation. But customer installation 
rates have been disappointing. Despite repeated direct mail offers 
to owners of affected vehicles, including personalized letters to 
all registered owners that included coupons

[[Page 16210]]

offering the kits for only $30, sales have been low. Sales continue 
to decline as these vehicles age and are scrapped.

    AAP and CHOP both generally agreed with the agency's analysis that 
retrofit shoulder belts are often too expensive and not readily 
available to the consumers needing them.

IV. Agency Decision To Terminate Rulemaking

    At the time of the petition, there were limited options for parents 
of children weighing more than 18 kg in vehicles that lacked lap and 
shoulder belts. There were no ``traditional'' child restraint systems 
(e.g., convertible or forward-facing child restraints, hybrid boosters, 
or belt-positioning boosters) that were certified above 18 kg and that 
could be secured to the vehicle with a lap belt only. The E-Z-On vest 
and harness systems were the only available child restraint systems 
that were certified to address this specific segment of the child and 
vehicle population. However, proper use of these systems requires use 
of a tether attachment. Also, as noted in response to the request for 
comments published by the agency, there have been concerns regarding 
the availability and/or acceptance of the E-Z-On products. These are 
only available through authorized E-Z-On distributors and not at 
retail, and do not ``look like the traditional child restraints.'' As 
such, they have typically not been readily accepted by consumers as a 
viable alternative to restrain children in lap belt only equipped 
seating positions.
    NHTSA does not believe that it is likely that tether anchorages 
will be installed in pre-1989 vehicles. Transport Canada has required 
vehicles to be able to be equipped with locations suitable for the 
installation of tether anchorages since 1989 (the same year NHTSA 
mandated all vehicles be equipped with lap and shoulder belts installed 
in rear outboard seating positions). As virtually all vehicles 
manufactured for use in Canada are also manufactured for use in the 
U.S., most of the post-1989 vehicles still on the road today in the 
U.S. can be retrofitted with tether anchorages. However, in pre-1989 
vehicles--the vehicles that are the focus of this petition because they 
have only lap belts in the rear seating positions--there is typically 
no tether anchorage point designated by the vehicle manufacturer. 
Installation of a tether anchorage in pre-1989 vehicles (1) without a 
designated anchorage location, and (2) lacking hardware and 
instructions supplied directly by the vehicle manufacturer is likely to 
be a difficult and costly process for a consumer. The agency believes 
that independent repair and body shop personnel may not be familiar 
with tether anchorages, and may express concern about the potential 
liability of installing aftermarket safety equipment. For these 
reasons, the agency does not believe that it is likely that tethers 
will be used in pre-1989 vehicles. Further, the agency is hesitant to 
facilitate the use of a product that is likely to be misused in the 
real world (e.g., child restraints that depend on tethering when the 
vehicle for which it is recommended would not have a tether anchorage.)
    Since the time of the petition, there have been various child 
restraint systems developed that address the gap existing for the 
combination of older vehicles and heavier children. Although Fisher-
Price is no longer marketing child restraints, it had developed and 
marketed the first forward-facing child restraint certified for more 
than 18 kg that used a lap only belt to secure the restraint to the 
vehicle and a 5-point harness to restrain the child within the 
restraint. The Futura 20/60 forward-facing child restraint was 
certified for children weighing up to 27.2 kg (60 lb) using a 5-point-
harness while secured to the vehicle with either a lap only or lap/
shoulder belt combination. In addition to being the only child 
restraint at the time certified for more than 18 kg using a lap belt 
only, the Futura 20/60 was also the only forward-facing child restraint 
that was able to meet FMVSS No. 213's revised head excursion limit of 
720 mm without the use of a tether strap.
    Similarly, Britax recently marketed a different child restraint 
that was designed to be used with children weighing more than 18 kg 
with the restraint secured to the vehicle by a lap only belt. The 
Britax Laptop was an energy-absorbing restraint designed to reduce the 
impact forces that occur in a crash. The Laptop was designed to be used 
with either a lap belt only or a lap and shoulder belt combination, 
could be placed in both rear outboard and rear center seating 
positions, and was certified for use by children weighing up to 29.5 kg 
(65 lb). The agency performed compliance testing on the Britax Laptop 
using both the 3- and 6-year-old dummies. In each instance, the 
performance criteria set forth in the standard were met by a large 
margin. When tested with the 3-year-old dummy, the HIC was 576 (limit = 
1000), the chest acceleration was 31.87 g's (limit = 60), the head 
excursion was 502 mm (19.75 in) (limit = 720 mm (28 in)), and the knee 
excursion was 544 mm (21.41 in) (limit = 915 mm (36 in)). When tested 
with the 6-year-old dummy, the HIC was 277, the chest acceleration was 
31.73 g's, the head excursion was 599 mm (23.6 in), and the knee 
excursion was 530 mm (20.88 in). Britax is no longer manufacturing the 
Laptop for sale in the United States.
    There are currently a number of child restraints available that are 
certified for use by children weighing more than 18 kg that can be used 
in vehicle seating positions equipped with lap only belts. The Britax 
Wizard and the Britax Marathon are convertible child restraints with 5-
point harnesses that can be used forward-facing by children weighing up 
to 29.5 kg. The Britax Husky is a forward-facing only child restraint 
with a 5-point harness that is certified for children weighing up to 
36.3 kg (80 lb). The Nania Airway LX Booster is a forward-facing child 
restraint that can be used with its 5-point harness by children 
weighing up to 22.7 kg.
    While restraints certified for children weighing more than 18 kg in 
seating positions equipped with lap only belts were largely unavailable 
at the time this petition was submitted, the introduction of the 
various restraints described above has demonstrated the ability of 
child restraint manufacturers to devise solutions for this segment of 
the population. The fact that there are not more restraints currently 
marketed for this segment of the population could be due to the fact 
that it is a small population that is shrinking as the numbers of pre-
1989 vehicles on the road are steadily declining in number, and will 
eventually be replaced by vehicles with lap and shoulder belts in the 
rear seats.
    As part of the recently enacted ``Anton's Law'' (Pub. L. 5504; 
December 4, 2002), NHTSA has issued an NPRM to require lap and shoulder 
belts at rear center seating positions (68 FR 46546; August 6, 2003). 
Anton's Law also requires in part that NHTSA initiate a rulemaking 
proceeding to establish performance requirements for child restraints, 
including booster seats, for the restraint of children weighing more 
than 22.7 kg. As part of this rulemaking, the agency is required to 
consider ``whether to address situations where children weighing more 
than 22.7 kg only have access to seating positions with lap belts, such 
as allowing tethered child restraints for such children.'' (Reference 
Section 3(a)(3) of Anton's Law) NHTSA has initiated a program to 
address this specific provision of Anton's Law, which directly 
parallels the issues raised in Ms. Weber's petition. As a result, 
efforts within the agency to address the development of acceptable 
restraint options for children weighing more than 22.7 kg in lap belt

[[Page 16211]]

only seating positions will continue, even though the subject 
rulemaking is being terminated.
    For the reasons outlined above, the agency has decided to terminate 
the rulemaking that was initiated in response to the petition submitted 
by Ms. Weber.

    Issued on: March 24, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-6901 Filed 3-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P