[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61908-61911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21465]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2005-21048]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by 
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (Honda), to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child restraint systems.'' Honda requested 
that FMVSS No. 213 be amended to limit the weight of all child 
restraint systems used with the 3-year-old dummy. Honda stated that 
such an amendment would assure the proper operation of weight-based 
occupant detection systems used to meet the air bag suppression 
requirements of FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For Non-Legal Issues: Mr. Tewabe Asebe, Office of Crashworthiness 
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2365.
    For Legal Issues: Mr. Chris Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2992, Facsimile: (202) 
366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 12, 2000, NHTSA issued a final rule for advanced air bags, 
amending FMVSS No. 208 to, among other things, minimize injuries to 
small adults and young children due to air bag deployment (65 FR 
30680). To address the risk air bags pose to young children in child 
restraint systems, the agency amended FMVSS No. 208 to include a number 
of alternative tests, one of which requires the front passenger air

[[Page 61909]]

bag system to automatically suppress when a child or child in a child 
restraint system is present. Some manufacturers rely on weight-based 
technology to comply with the automatic air bag suppression 
requirement. Weight-based technologies utilize load cells or other 
sensors designed into the vehicle seat. With this option, the vehicle 
air bag in the right front passenger seat is suppressed when a child or 
a child in a child restraint system is placed on the seat. If an adult 
occupies the front passenger seat, the feature enables the air bag 
deployment. The threshold for enabling the air bag deployment is 
dependent on the design and calibration of the suppression system used.
    The agency selected certain child restraint systems to be used for 
compliance testing of the air bag suppression systems. The selected 
child restraint systems are included as an appendix (Appendix A, 
``Selection of child restraint systems'') in FMVSS No. 208. The list of 
child restraint systems is periodically updated to reflect child 
restraint systems currently on the market. On November 19, 2003, the 
agency updated the list of child restraint systems in Appendix A of 
FMVSS No. 208 (68 FR 65179). FMVSS No. 208 requires that vehicles be 
certified for compliance using any of the child restraint systems in 
Appendix A.

II. The Petition

    On February 11, 2004, the agency received a petition for rulemaking 
from Honda requesting that NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 213 to limit the 
weight of all child restraint systems, including rear-facing, forward-
facing, and convertible type restraints used by 3-year-old children and 
produced in accordance with FMVSS No. 213, for the purpose of 
maintaining the appropriate air bag deployment for small occupants. 
Honda suggested that, based on available child restraint system 
designs, ``perhaps a weight limit of about 8.5 kilograms (kg) (18.7 lb) 
may be appropriate.''
    As Honda's petition specifically addresses the air bag suppression 
requirements for child restraints used with the 3-year-old dummy, NHTSA 
notes that manufacturers choosing to certify to FMVSS No. 208 S21.2, 
Option-Automatic suppression feature, must demonstrate compliance when 
using any of the child restraints listed in sections C and D of FMVSS 
No. 208 Appendix A. These child restraints include (1) forward-facing 
toddler and forward-facing convertible seats, and (2) forward-facing 
toddler/belt positioning-booster seats and belt-positioning booster 
seats.
    In its petition, Honda stated that it agrees with NHTSA that it is 
very important to periodically update the child restraint system list 
in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208. However, Honda claimed that the weight 
of certain child restraint system models recommended for 3-year-old 
children in the updated list were heavier than others. Honda proposed 
to limit the child restraint system mass to about 8.5 kg (18.7 pounds). 
Specifically, the petitioner stated:

    A current, popular system for automatic suppression of the air 
bag for the infant and small child is seat weight detection. If 
increasingly heavier CRSs are added to the market endlessly, the 
stable and reliable performance of small occupant detection systems 
cannot be achieved. Consequently, future air bag suppression systems 
designed to prevent deployment with infants or small children in 
very heavy future CRSs could also suppress deployment for small 
adults such as the AF5 (5th percentile adult female). We are also 
concerned that older vehicles already on the road with suppression 
systems calibrated to the lower weights of older CRS specifications 
will fail to recognize newer, heavier designs. This means the air 
bag could deploy for an infant or small child in a very heavy CRS in 
vehicles calibrated to lighter weight CRSs that were on the market 
at the time the vehicle suppression system was designed.
    Therefore, we believe NHTSA should amend the FMVSS No. 213, 
``Child Restraint Systems,'' to limit the weight of all C3Y (Three-
year-old Child Dummy) CRSs (including rear-facing, forward-facing 
and convertible type CRSs) produced in accordance with FMVSS 213 for 
the purpose of maintaining the appropriate airbag deployment for 
small occupants. Based on the CRS designs available, perhaps a 
weight limit of about 8.5 kilograms may be appropriate.
    Based on the wide variety of CRS designs already on the market, 
Honda does not believe this simple requirement would unduly limit 
CRS designs or performance. A lighter CRS weight would assist in 
assuring the proper operation of weight-based air bag suppression 
systems and would add to consumer convenience and usage by being 
easier to carry and install in a vehicle.

III. Data

    Honda provided the mass distribution for the child restraint 
systems in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208. The weight distribution for 
these restraints ranged from about 1.5 kg (3.3 pounds) for Evenflo 
Right Fit to about 7.9 kg (17.4 pounds) for Britax Expressway ISOFIX, 
with an average weight of about 4.6 kg (11 pounds). Honda proposed to 
limit the child restraint system weight to about 8.5 kg (18.7 pounds). 
It is important to note that as currently written, FMVSS No. 213 is a 
performance standard, and as such, does not specify any weight limit on 
particular child restraint system designs.
    While Honda's petition provided the weight of the child restraint 
systems currently included in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA 
obtained the weight of a number of varying restraint designs, either 
currently available or available in recent years, including infant 
beds, infant seats with and without a base, convertible child seats, 
forward-facing only seats, combination child and booster seats, and 
booster seats child restraints.\1\ From this list, NHTSA examined the 
weights of those restraints that could possibly be included in sections 
C and D of FMVSS No. 208 Appendix A, and therefore relevant to the 
subject petition (e.g., forward-facing toddler, forward-facing 
convertible seats, forward-facing toddler/belt positioning-booster 
seats, and belt-positioning booster seats). While the vast majority of 
these child restraint systems weigh less than the Britax Expressway 
ISOFIX (currently, the heaviest child restraint system included in 
Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208), NHTSA found at least seven child 
restraint systems heavier than the Britax Expressway ISOFIX. Further, 
six of these are heavier than the 8.5 kg limit suggested by Honda in 
its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. provided the weights of these varying 
child restraints to NHTSA. A list of the restrint make/models and 
weights has been submitted separately to this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Analysis

    Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208 specifies a list of child restraint 
systems that may be used by NHTSA to test the air bag suppression 
systems of a vehicle that has been certified as complying with S19, 
S21, or S23 of FMVSS No. 208. When selecting a child restraint system 
to be included in Appendix A, the agency considers a number of 
different factors. These factors are outlined in the agency's November 
2003, final rule as follows:

    In deciding whether to amend Appendix A, NHTSA will consider a 
number of factors, such as whether a particular restraint has been a 
high volume model, whether it has mass and dimensions that are 
representative of many restraints on the market, whether its mass 
and dimensions represent outliers, and whether a variety of 
restraint manufacturers are represented in the appendix. This 
approach will allow us to limit Appendix A to those restraints that 
represent large portions of the CRS market, while including 
exceptionally large or small restraints. We believe a combination of 
restraints is needed to assure the robustness of automatic 
suppression systems under real world conditions.

    Specifically with respect to Honda's concern about the increasing 
weight of

[[Page 61910]]

child restraint systems, the heaviest child restraint system selected 
for inclusion in Appendix A, as amended in the November 19, 2003 final 
rule, is about 0.5 kg (1.1 lbs) heavier than the heaviest child 
restraint system removed from Appendix A. However, as noted earlier, 
the Britax Expressway ISOFIX is lighter than at least seven other child 
restraint systems either currently available or available in recent 
years that could be included in sections C and D of FMVSS No. 208 
Appendix A. Importantly, NHTSA notes that there is no single 
established weight threshold for all weight-based air bag suppression 
systems on the market. The design of these systems may vary depending 
on a number of different parameters, as long as the system adequately 
suppresses the air bag when tested in accordance with the requirements 
of FMVSS No. 208.
    Honda stated that for weight-based occupant detection systems used 
for air bag suppression, if increasingly heavier child restraint 
systems are added to the market endlessly, the stable and reliable 
performance of small occupant detection systems could not be achieved. 
NHTSA does not believe that the addition of the Britax Expressway 
ISOFIX, the heaviest child restraint system included in Appendix A of 
FMVSS No. 208 to date, serves as an indication that child restraints 
are becoming heavier. As noted earlier, NHTSA has identified at least 
nine child restraint systems that are above the 8.5 kg mass limit 
proposed by Honda. However, as FMVSS No. 213 does not require child 
restraint systems to meet specific weight limits, NHTSA does not weigh 
the restraints as part of its annual compliance test program. As such, 
the agency has no historical data to show that there is a trend towards 
increasingly heavier child restraint systems as implied by Honda. 
Further, Honda did not provide such data in support of its petition.
    The agency did estimate that, in order to comply with the 
requirement that all child restraint systems have hardware enabling the 
restraint to attach to the universal child restraint anchorage system 
required in vehicles as a result of FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint 
anchorage systems,'' each child restraint system would have an 
incremental weight increase ranging from less than 0.45 kg (1 pound) to 
1.36 kg (3 pounds) depending on the type of attachment hardware 
used.\2\ To date, virtually all child restraint systems have adopted 
the use of flexible-type attachment hardware, which only marginally 
increases the weight of the child restraint system. Notably, the 
heaviest child restraint system in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208-the 
Britax Expressway ISOFIX-is a restraint that utilizes a rigid lower 
attachment system to connect to the vehicle anchorages and is designed 
for forward-facing use. These rigid anchorages are typically heavier 
than the flexible attachment hardware that is predominant in current 
designs. However, we note that the Britax Expressway ISOFIX, at 7.9 kg 
(17.4 lb), is still significantly lighter than the heaviest child 
restraint system examined by NHTSA-the Britax Super Elite (a forward-
facing seat for children weighing between 22 and 80 pounds, equipped 
with a 5-point harness restraint system) at 11.6 kg (25.6 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Final Economic Assessment, FMVSS No. 213, FMVSS No. 225, 
Child Restraint Systems, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems. Docket 
No. NHTSA-1998-3390-27, Page 44, February 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Honda stated that based on the wide variety of child restraint 
system designs already on the market, the company does not believe a 
weight limit requirement would unduly limit child restraint system 
design or performance. However, Honda did not present evidence to 
support this claim. Absent such evidence, there is no way for the 
agency to confirm Honda's assertion. As noted earlier, FMVSS No. 213-as 
with the other FMVSSs-is a performance standard. The agency does not 
believe that it is appropriate to impose design-restrictive 
requirements that may hinder the development of safety features for use 
in future child restraint system designs. For example, NHTSA is 
conducting ongoing research in the area of improved side impact 
protection for children in crashes in response to the Transportation 
Recall, Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act. 
NHTSA does not want to put constraints on potential innovative designs 
that could improve safety for children in this or other areas in the 
future, and believes that imposing design-restrictive parameters for 
child restraints-such as imposing a weight limit as suggested in the 
subject petition-could potentially preclude the development of safety 
advances. While FMVSS No. 213 does not currently specify weight limits 
on child restraint designs, the agency notes, as did Honda, that 
lighter weight child restraint systems can be considered more user-
friendly in that they are easier to move from one vehicle to another 
and from one seating position to another in the same vehicle if needed.
    Honda stated that it is concerned that older vehicles that are 
already on the road, with suppression systems calibrated to the lower 
weights of older child restraint systems, will fail to recognize newer 
and heavier child restraint systems. Honda stated that the air bag 
could deploy for an infant or small child in a very heavy child 
restraint system in vehicles calibrated to lighter weight child 
restraint systems that were on the market at the time the vehicle 
suppression system was designed. NHTSA notes that the mass of the 
Britax Expressway ISOFIX is only 0.5 kg (1.1 lb) more than the previous 
heaviest child restraint system included in Appendix A. This is a very 
nominal increase (approximately 3 percent) in child restraint mass, and 
the agency would expect that the margin of safety designed into the 
occupant detection systems used to control air bag suppression systems 
is sufficient to address such small changes in child restraint system 
mass. This is especially important given that the agency has identified 
a number of child restraints either currently available or available in 
the recent past that are heavier- and in some cases, significantly 
heavier-than the Britax Expressway ISOFIX.
    While Honda proposed to limit child restraint system design mass to 
about 8.5 kg (18.7 lb), it did not provide any rationale or supporting 
data to justify this 8.5 kg limit. This, coupled with the fact that 
there is no single established weight threshold for all weight-based 
air bag suppression systems on the market, does not support the 
adoption of Honda's proposed amendment. The agency does not have a 
rationale to restrict the mass of child restraint systems to a limit of 
8.5 kg at this time.
    While NHTSA does not believe that amendments are necessary at this 
time, the agency shares Honda's concern. As noted earlier, the agency 
does not weigh child restraints as part of the FMVSS No. 213 compliance 
test program. However, the agency does now weigh these seats for use in 
(1) developing future upgrades to Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208 and (2) 
the agency's Child Restraint Ease of Use Ratings Program. In addition, 
we will continue to monitor developments on this matter through the 
Society of Automotive Engineers-Child Restraint Systems Standard 
Committee, whose members include motor vehicle and motor vehicle 
equipment manufacturers, and child restraint systems manufacturers. 
This committee has been and continues to be in dialog on this subject, 
and we will ensure that the concerns are well communicated.

VI. Conclusion

    The agency has clearly noted the composition of Appendix A is 
intended to represent large portions of the child restraint system 
market, while including

[[Page 61911]]

exceptionally large or small restraints. This combination of restraints 
is needed to assure the robustness of automatic suppression systems 
under real world conditions. It is also important to note that when 
Appendix A was amended in November 2003, the Britax Expressway ISOFIX 
was unique in design, in that it was the only child restraint system 
available with rigid Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) 
attachments. While the agency has identified a small percentage of 
child restraint systems that weigh more than the Britax Expressway 
ISOFIX, the inclusion of heavier child restraint system designs is not 
inconsistent with the intent of Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208. Further, 
while the Britax Expressway ISOFIX is approximately 0.5 kg (1.1 lb) 
heavier than the heaviest child restraint system that was removed from 
Appendix A as amended in the November 2003 final rule, the agency does 
not consider this to be an indication that child restraint system 
designs are increasing in weight.
    As noted earlier, FMVSS No. 213 is a performance standard, and does 
not specify particular design constraints such as mass and/or 
dimensions. Honda did not provide any rationale for its proposal to 
limit child restraint system designs to a maximum of 8.5 kg (18.7 lb). 
NHTSA has not identified any real-world data to support the need to 
limit the weight of child restraint systems, and specifically as it 
relates to the performance of occupant detection systems for automatic 
air bag suppression. Further, specification of a child restraint system 
mass limit, when considered in conjunction with the mass of the dummy 
used in air bag suppression testing, would effectively establish a 
weight threshold for weight-based air bag suppression systems. It is 
not the intent of the agency to specify such a threshold. Each vehicle 
manufacturer is responsible for meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 
208 when using any of the child restraint systems listed in Appendix A.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is denying Honda's 
petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 213 to adopt a design weight 
limit for child restraint systems used with the 3-year-old dummy. In 
accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, this completes the agency's review of 
the petition.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: October 13, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-21465 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P