[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 156 (Friday, August 13, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44164-44171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20950]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 575
[Docket No. 99-5100]
RIN 2127-AG49
Consumer Information Regulations; Seat Belt Positioners
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Grant of petition for rulemaking; notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend our consumer information
regulations to require seat belt positioners to be labeled as not
suitable for children of a certain age, e.g., under 6 years old, or a
certain height. Seat belt positioners alter the positioning of vehicle
lap and shoulder belts on children. We found in tests of some of the
devices that they inadequately restrained a 3-year-old child dummy and
reduced the performance of vehicle belts restraining a 6-year-old child
dummy. We are also requesting information on the alternative of
establishing a minimum performance standard for seat belt positioners.
We have issued this document in response to a petition for rulemaking
from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than October 12, 1999.
ADDRESSES: You should mention the docket number of this document in
your comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20590.
You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the
Docket from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For non-legal issues, you may call Mike Huntley of the NHTSA Office
of Crashworthiness Standards, at 202-366-0029.
For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita of the NHTSA Office
of Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC,
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview
This document grants a petition for rulemaking from the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) requesting that NHTSA amend Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems'' (49 CFR
571.213) (Standard 213), to include performance requirements applicable
to aftermarket, add-on seat belt positioners. These devices alter the
positioning of vehicle lap and shoulder belts. The statements on the
packaging for some of these devices indicate that they are suitable for
improving the fit of the belts on children, which in some cases
includes 3- to 6-year-olds, and small adults.
The agency dynamically tested three types of belt positioning
devices in 1994, using 3-year-old and 6-year-old dummies. We tested the
dummies by restraining them in lap/shoulder belts
[[Page 44165]]
with, and without, the devices. When we compared the results, we found
that in many of the tests with the 3-year-old dummy, the positioners
reduced belt performance and contributed toward excessive head injury
criterion (HIC) measurements (HICs were greater than 1000). The devices
generally performed adequately with the 6-year-old dummy, in that the
performance criteria of our child restraint standard were not exceeded,
although there was some reduction in the performance of the vehicle
belt system restraining the dummy.
In this document, we propose to amend our consumer information
regulations (49 CFR Part 575) to require seat belt positioners to be
labeled as not suitable for children of a certain age, e.g., 6 years,
and younger. We also request information on the alternative, or
additional, approach of establishing a minimum performance standard for
seat belt positioners. Further, we also seek information on whether
there is a real-world safety problem of sufficient magnitude to merit
the agency's taking action.
Petition for Rulemaking
On January 31, 1996, AAP petitioned NHTSA to amend Standard 213,
``Child Restraint Systems,'' to regulate aftermarket seat belt
positioners. Aftermarket seat belt positioners, which are designed to
improve the fit of the lap and shoulder belt system on a child or small
adult, are not currently subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety
standard. Standard 213 applies to ``any device except Type I or Type II
seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to
restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less.''
(S4) A seat belt positioner that does not restrain, seat or position
children is not a device regulated by Standard 213. Safety Standard No.
208, ``Occupant Crash Protection'' (49 CFR 571.208) and Standard 210
(571.210), ``Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages,'' apply to new, completed
vehicles. Standard 209 (571.209), ``Seat Belt Assemblies,'' applies to
new seat belt assemblies. Because an aftermarket seat belt positioner
is not installed as part of a completed vehicle or a seat belt
assembly, Standards 208, 209 and 210 do not apply.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While seat belt positioners are not subject to the
standards, they are items of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly,
their manufacturers are subject to the requirements in 49 U.S.C.
30119 and 30120 concerning the recall and remedy of products with
safety related defects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAP states that, because seat belt positioners are generally
marketed as child occupant protection devices, the products should be
subject to the same scrutiny and testing that child restraint systems
undergo. AAP's concern is that some seat belt positioners ``appear to
interfere with proper lap and shoulder harness fit by positioning the
lap belt too high on the abdomen, the shoulder harness too low across
the shoulder, and by allowing too much slack in the shoulder harness.''
Accordingly, AAP believes that the devices should be subject to a
safety standard so that they are required to meet a minimum level of
performance. AAP believes that this would be especially appropriate
because, AAP contends, some parents decide to have their older children
sit directly on the vehicle seat and use a combination of vehicle seat
belts and seat belt positioners instead of having those children sit in
booster seats certified to Standard 213. (As explained below, NHTSA
recommends that children weighing over 40 pounds (lb) be restrained in
a booster seat until they are tall enough so that they can, without the
aid of a booster seat: (1) Wear the shoulder belt comfortably across
their shoulder, and secure the lap belt across their pelvis, and (2)
bend their legs over the front of the seat when their backs are against
the vehicle seat back.)
NHTSA's Previous Consideration of Seat Belt Positioners
We previously raised the question of whether seat belt positioners
should be regulated by Standard 213 several years ago. In a rulemaking
proceeding initiated in response to the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991
(sections 2500-2509 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act), we issued an NPRM seeking comment on, among other issues, the
question of whether the standard should be applied to those devices,
and if so, what requirements would be appropriate. We later issued a
final rule amending Standard 213 in areas unrelated to seat belt
positioners, but in that rule we discussed the public comments on this
issue and announced our decision (60 FR 35126; July 6, 1995) not to
propose applying the standard to these devices:
Six commenters responded to this issue. All believed the devices
need to be subjected to safety standards to ensure that they provide
occupants with proper safety protection. UM-CPP [University of
Michigan Child Protection Program] stated that the primary problem
with these devices is that there are ``no formal test procedures and
criteria for determining whether a given deflector is effective and/
or better than nothing for certain vehicle belt/occupant
combinations.'' IIHS [Insurance Institute for Highway Safety]
strongly urged that these restraint devices to improve belt fit, be
subject to Standard 213, as are booster seats. It said these devices
are targeted to those children who have outgrown toddler seats but
are too small to be appropriately restrained by adult seatbelts.
Redlog, a manufacturer of belt adjustment devices, recommended that
these devices be included in the definition of child restraints in
FMVSS No. 213. Redlog recommended creating a sub-category within the
existing definition of child restraints to accommodate these
devices. It concluded by saying that dynamic crash testing and
labeling for appropriate usage are essential requirements. Advocates
[Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety] expressed its concern with
the safety of these devices and said the agency has an obligation to
test them to determine if they interfere with the safety performance
of the restraint system. Safety BeltSafe said that ``standards are
essential for the new category of product which purports to
reconfigure the shoulder lap belt to respond to the differing seated
heights of passengers and drivers in vehicles.'' It, however, said
at this time, it does not recommend use of such products if the
passenger is able to use a belt-positioning booster. CompUTence said
that FMVSS 213 should address all child and small adult safety
devices relating to occupant restraint and that, currently, these
devices are sold without knowledge of whether they provide the
safety claimed by their manufacturers.
While commenters supported regulating the aftermarket devices,
the agency is not prepared to undertake rulemaking at this time.
NHTSA needs to better assess the safety benefits of such rulemaking,
and the feasibility of a test procedure and practicability of
performance requirements. (60 FR at 35137)
Agency Review of Petition
In reviewing AAP's petition, we were guided by a number of
considerations. First, we believe that children's crash protection will
be maximized if parents follow the recommendations we developed on what
type of restraint should be used for children of particular sizes. One
question for us was whether the positioners themselves, or the
statements in their marketing and packaging, might encourage parents to
use child restraints in a manner inconsistent with those
recommendations. Second, we believe that use of belt positioners must
not degrade the safety of children whose child restraint usage is
consistent with the recommendations.
NHTSA Recommendations Regarding Child Restraint Usage
Our usage recommendations, which were published in November 1997 as
part of an information brochure concerning on-off switches for air
bags, are as follows:
[[Page 44166]]
What Restraint Is Right For Your Child?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proper type of restraint (Put
Weight or size of your child your child in back seat, if
possible)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children less than 20 pounds,* or less Rear-facing infant seat
than 1 year. (secured to the vehicle by
the seat belts).
Children from about 20 to 40 pounds* and Forward-facing child seat
at least 1 year. (secured to the vehicle by
the seat belts).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children more than 40 pounds*........... Booster seat, plus both
portions of a lap/shoulder
belt (except only the lap
portion is used with some
booster seats equipped with
front shield).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children who meet both criteria below: Both portions of a lap/
shoulder belt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Their sitting height is high
enough so that they can, without
the aid of a booster seat:
wear the shoulder belt
comfortably across their
shoulder, and secure the lap
belt across their pelvis, and
(2) Their legs are long enough to
bend over the front of the seat
when their backs are against the
vehicle seat back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* To determine whether a particular restraint is appropriate for your
child, see restraint manufacturer's recommendations concerning the
weight of children who may safely use the restraint.
We believe that it is important that seat belt positioners and
other child passenger devices, and the statements in their marketing
and packaging, not induce parents and other care givers to restrain
children in a way that may be appropriate for a larger child, but not
for that child. For example, children who cannot meet the sitting
height and leg length criteria in the agency's recommendations should
not be placed directly on a vehicle seat, restrained by the vehicle
seat belts.
We believe that if seat belt positioners are marketed for children
under 6 years old, they can induce people to act contrary to this
advice. The 50th percentile 3-year-old male child weighs 33 lb. Under
our recommendations, a 3-year-old child should be restrained by a
forward-facing child restraint (a convertible or toddler seat) rather
than by the vehicle's seat belts. When the child outgrows a forward-
facing convertible or toddler seat, he or she should use a child
booster seat, which lifts and positions the child to fit a vehicle's
belt system. The booster seat should be used until the child is tall
enough to wear the vehicle's lap and shoulder belts properly without an
accessory, and can sit comfortably on the vehicle seat with knees bent
over the front of the seat when the child's back is against the vehicle
seat back.
We note that it is uncertain whether seat belt positioners are now
generally marketed for use with 3-year-old children. We believe that
the positioners are usually advertised in both their promotional
materials and in statements on their packaging as being suitable for
children who weigh 50 lb or more, which is approximately the weight of
the 50th percentile 6-year-old male (48 lb). A positioner that, several
years ago, had been advertised in packaging as suitable for use by
children as young as 3 years old, 2 no longer is so
recommended. Now, it is instead marketed as suitable for children
weighing over 50 lb. Further, it is uncertain whether or to what extent
seat belt positioners are being used with children 3- to 6-years old.
State child restraint use laws requiring the use of child safety seats
would indirectly prohibit use of a positioner alone in combination with
vehicle seat belts (with no child safety seat), for restraining very
young children (e.g., under the age of 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This positioner, the Child-Safer, was included in NHTSA's
test program, infra, and tested with the 3-year-old dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's Dynamic Testing of Seat Belt Positioners
Following the issuance of the July 1995 rule, NHTSA published a
report on an evaluation by our Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC)
of three types of seat belt positioners. ``Evaluation of Devices to
Improve Shoulder Belt Fit,'' DOT HS 808 383, Sullivan and Chambers,
August 1994.3 The three devices were the ChildSafer, a
plastic strip that attaches to the lap belt and that has three
different openings through which the shoulder belt can be routed; the
SafeFit, a pouch design through which the lap/shoulder belt is routed;
and the Seatbelt Adjuster, a plastic clip that attaches to the lap
belt, which has a flange through which the shoulder belt is rerouted.
The ChildSafer was then recommended for occupants between the heights
of 38 inches (the standing height of the average 3-year-old male child)
to 60 inches. VRTC conducted a series of 35 sled tests using a dynamic
test procedure to evaluate seat belt positioners using the standard
frontal condition specified in Standard 213 4, as well as
modified conditions to simulate oblique (15 degree offset) impacts.
VRTC used test dummies representing a 3-year-old and 6-year-old child,
and a 5th percentile adult female. In the test representing a 15 degree
offset impact, the test seat assembly was placed in two different
positions, rotated clockwise (occupant faces toward shoulder portion of
seat belt) and rotated counterclockwise (occupant faces away from
shoulder portion of seat belt).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ While the study was conducted in 1994, preparation of the
report for publication was not completed until 1995. The report is
available from the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA 22161.
\4\ Standard 213's dynamic test uses a standard vehicle seat
assembly to which a child restraint system is attached by means of a
vehicle seat belt. The seat assembly, along with the child restraint
system, is subjected to a frontal 30 mph change of velocity over a
duration of about 80 milliseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRTC found that injury criteria measurements were generally higher
when a seat belt positioner was used in restraining the 3-year-old
dummy than when the child dummy was restrained without a belt
positioner. (The latter case is referred to as the ``baseline''
configuration. In the baseline tests conducted using the 3-year-old
dummy, the dummy was positioned such that the shoulder belt was
positioned across the shoulder and away from the neck area as best as
possible.) When tested in the baseline configuration, i.e., with no
positioner, the HIC values were less than 1000 for all tests. (However,
the HIC value for the three-year-old dummy
[[Page 44167]]
in the baseline/clockwise orientation was marginal at 995.) When tested
with the positioners, HIC levels, for the most part, exceeded the 1000
HIC limit of Standard 213.
In all of the tests (with and without seat belt positioners) with
the 3-year-old dummy, the dummy's head hit his forearms. In some tests,
these head impacts were more severe than in others. In some tests with
a seat belt positioner, the forehead would hit one forearm and then
bounce to the other forearm. These contacts contributed to the increase
of the HIC measurements. However, although removing the effect of the
head contact reduced the HIC values by about 6 percent, the HIC values
were still above the Standard 213 criterion of 1000.
In other tests with a seat belt positioner, the shoulder belt
portion of the lap/shoulder belt slipped off the shoulder, allowing the
3-year-old dummy to slip around the belt. In tests of the 3-year-old
dummy in the frontal crash configuration with a seat belt positioner,
the increased chest g's and head and knee excursions were still within
the limits of the standard. One positioner lowered chest g measurements
in the frontal and 15 degree offset crash configurations.
In tests with the 6-year-old dummy, when using a seat belt
positioner, the dummy tended to ``roll-out'' of the seat belt
positioner and around the shoulder belt. The HIC, chest g's, and head
and knee excursions increased in some cases but were generally within
the limits for all the tests (with and without seat belt positioners),
except one of the seat belt positioners had chest g measurements
exceeding the limit of Standard 213 in the frontal and 15 degree offset
clockwise tests. That device introduced slack in the shoulder belt
during the test. In some of the tests, the positioners resulted in
injury criteria values that were lower than or approximately the same
as those obtained in the baseline tests.
The complete test results are set forth in Tables 1 and 2 below.
Those results should be compared to the requirements of Standard 213,
which specifies testing in the frontal crash condition and limits HIC
to 1000; chest acceleration to 60 g's; head excursion to 813 mm; and
knee excursion to 915 mm.
Table 1.--Injury Criteria and Excursion for 3-Year-Old Dummy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Knee
Fit device HIC Chest clip excursion excursion
(g) (mm) (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limits of Standard 213 1000 60 813 915
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Year-Old.......................... Baseline (No Device).. 874 48.7 477 553
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frontal............................. Child Safer........... 1309 55.1 560 615
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SafeFit............... 1095 56.5 496 618
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seatbelt adjuster..... 999 48.1 551 583
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Year-Old.......................... Baseline (No Device).. 995 48.5 411 535
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 deg. Offset Clock-wise........... Child Safer........... 1565 52.3 564 665
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SafeFit............... 1435 62.1 486 639
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seatbelt adjuster..... 1238 45.4 452 580
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Injury Criteria and Excursion for 6-Year-Old Dummy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Knee
Fit device HIC Chest clip excursion excursion
(g) (mm) (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limits of Standard 213 1000 60 813 915
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Year-Old.......................... Baseline (No Device).. 657 50.4 481 628
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frontal............................. Child Safer........... 769 65.2 567 674
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SafeFit............... 427 49.1 566 649
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seatbelt adjuster..... 634 50.8 473 604
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Year-Old.......................... Baseline (No Device).. 595 54.3 435 602
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 deg. Offset Clockwise............ Child Safer........... 947 67.1 540 661
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SafeFit............... 621 57.7 461 580
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seatbelt adjuster..... 794 55.1 493 640
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Year-Old.......................... Baseline (No Device).. 409 48.5 516 607
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 deg. Offset Counter-clockwise.... Child Safer........... 509 50.1 628 605
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SafeFit............... 386 42.8 577 589
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seatbelt adjuster..... 374 45.7 554 559
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44168]]
Agency Decision Regarding AAP's Petition
NHTSA is granting AAP's petition and is proposing to amend our
labeling regulation to require seat belt positioners to be labeled with
a warning against using the devices with children under the age of
6.5 We also request comment on whether the requirements
proposed in this NPRM should also apply to seat belt positioners
installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle, in addition to seat
belt positioners sold directly to consumers in the ``aftermarket.'' We
are also asking for information on other possible courses of action we
could take with regard to the devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In November 1998, NHTSA Administrator Ricardo Martinez,
M.D., formed a ``Blue Ribbon Panel,'' consisting of representatives
from the auto and child restraint safety communities, to examine
ways to ensure the proper protection of children ages 5 to 16 in
motor vehicles. On March 15, 1999, the panel released a set of
recommendations, including a number in the areas of product design
and research that directly address the issue of seat belt
positioning devices. NHTSA will consider the recommendations of the
panel in conjunction with those comments received in response to
this notice in determining the appropriate course of action
regarding the regulation of belt positioning devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 1: Is There a Safety Need for This Rulemaking Action?
A real-world safety problem has not been quantified thus far. There
are no complaints in our crash files concerning seat belt positioners.
AAP did not submit any information indicating that positioners are
actually causing or exacerbating injuries.
The VRTC study found that there could be a potential safety
problem. The study found that three types of positioners generally
degraded the performance of the lap/shoulder belt system when tested
with the 3-year-old dummy, by increasing the head and chest injury
criteria measurements, and head and knee excursion measurements, over
the measurements made in the baseline tests. One positioner slightly
decreased chest clip values measured in the frontal and 15 degree
offset tests. HIC levels for the positioners were at or exceeded the
1000 HIC limit of Standard 213 in all tests. When tested with the 6-
year-old dummy, the positioners generally performed adequately, by
keeping the injury criteria measurements within the limits of the
standard. In some of the tests, the positioners resulted in injury
criteria values that were lower than or approximately the same as those
obtained in the baseline tests.
However, although HIC values generally exceeded the limit of
Standard 213 in tests with the 3-year-old dummy, seat belt positioners
might not be typically used with 3-year-old children. As noted above,
the devices are typically marketed (in advertising literature and on
packaging) for children who weigh 50 lb or more, which is approximately
the weight of the 50th percentile 6-year-old male (48 lb). In view of
the current marketing of seat belt positioners for use by children
weighing 50 lb or more, we request comments on whether regulating the
devices is warranted.
While the VRTC study compared the performance of the various seat
belt positioners to a baseline configuration of the test dummy
restrained without the positioner (i.e., positioned directly on the
test seat and restrained by a lap/shoulder belt), we also compared the
performance of the seat belt positioners (as measured in the VRTC
study) to Standard 213 compliance test results of convertible child
restraints and belt-positioning seats. We compared the VRTC test
results of the seat belt positioning devices to compliance tests that
were conducted by the agency between 1993 and 1998, using the 3-year-
old dummy in convertible child restraints and the 6-year-old dummy in
belt-positioning booster seats. The average HIC value in 363 compliance
tests conducted on convertible child restraints using the 3-year-old
dummy is 483.6, as compared to an average HIC of 1,134.3 for the three
seat belt positioners tested (using the frontal crash scenario results
only). This is a 57.3 percent reduction of HIC values when using the
convertible-type child restraint. Test results also indicate that chest
acceleration values are reduced to an average of 46.9 g's in the 363
compliance tests using the 3-year-old dummy in a convertible child
restraint, from an average of 53.2 g's using the seat belt positioning
devices.
The average head and knee excursion in the compliance tests of the
convertible seats was found to be 28.9 inches and 32.5 inches,
respectively. These values are somewhat greater than the 21.1 inches
and 23.8 inches for head and knee excursion found for the belt
positioning devices during the VRTC study, but still well within the
limits of 32 inches and 36 inches prescribed in Standard 213. It should
also be noted that beginning in September of this year, child
restraints will be required to meet more stringent requirements with
respect to the allowable head excursion in dynamic testing. Convertible
child restraints manufactured on or after September 1, 1999 will be
required to limit head excursion of the test dummy to a maximum of 28
inches (the restraints may incorporate a tether to meet this
requirement).
The average values for each of the injury criteria measured with
the 6-year-old dummy in compliance tests of belt-positioning booster
seats are below those measured using the seat belt positioning devices
in the VRTC study. HIC values in 17 compliance tests of belt-
positioning booster seats using the 6-year-old dummy have averaged 464,
as compared to 610 for the seat belt positioning devices in the VRTC
study, and chest acceleration values have averaged 48.8 g's for belt-
positioning booster seats, as compared to 55 g's for the seat belt
positioning devices. Head and knee excursion are also reduced by an
average of 1 inch each when using a belt-positioning seat.
The data above indicate that children are typically afforded
greater levels of protection when using convertible-type and belt-
positioning booster seats than when using the seat belt positioning
devices tested in the VRTC study. These data indicate that a 3-year-old
child should not be restrained using a seat belt positioning device.
Children of this age should typically be restrained in a convertible-
type child restraint, which often offers a 5-point harness for added
protection in the event of a crash. Further, the data show that a 6-
year-old child restrained in a belt-positioning booster seat is
provided a greater level of safety protection than when using a seat
belt positioning device.
Issue 2: Should We Require a Warning Label for the Devices?
Our tests of seat belt positioners indicate that they generally
performed adequately with the 6-year-old dummy, but did not do so in
tests with 3-year-old dummy. (The devices increased the latter dummy's
HIC values to unacceptable levels.) In view of this, we are proposing
to require that the devices be labeled with a warning that they must
not be used with children under a certain age, e.g., 6 years.
Alternatively, a child's height might be a better predictor of whether
a positioner would perform adequately than a child's age. Thus, we also
are requesting comments on whether the label should include a warning
against using the devices with children under a certain height, e.g.,
the height of a 50th percentile 6-year-old male (47.5 inches, or 1206
mm), as an alternative or in addition to the warning referencing the
child's age.
We are proposing that seat belt positioners be labeled with
information that would maximize the correct positioning of the belts on
the child. The lap and shoulder belt needs to be positioned so as to
maximize the
[[Page 44169]]
distribution of the crash forces to the child's skeletal structure. The
lap belt and the shoulder belt should not be positioned such that they
would increase the loading of the soft tissues and organs of the
child's abdomen. The shoulder belt should not be aligned so that the
child might twist toward the middle of the vehicle in a crash, or
adjusted with excessive slack in the belt. We thus propose that seat
belt positioners be labeled with the statement: ``Make sure that this
device positions the lap belt low across the child's hips and not on
the stomach. The shoulder belt must be snug and on the child's
shoulder, not near the neck or off the shoulder.'' Comments are
requested on this issue.
The regulatory text provided in this NPRM proposes a permanent
label that includes the information, noted above, as to how the lap and
shoulder belt should be properly fitted, and information as to the
model name or number of the system, the manufacturer's name, and the
place of manufacture. The latter information would be required to
assist in identifying the equipment for purposes of a finding of a
safety defect or a recall. Is there enough room on these devices for a
permanent label which incorporates all of this information in a
readable size? If not, are there alternative means to convey the same
information, e.g., a permanent label warning ``Do not use for children
under 6'' on the device, in conjunction with a requirement that the
remaining information be provided with the packaging material?
Issue 3: Should the Devices Be Regulated by Standard 213?
The agency tentatively believes that it would not be appropriate
for seat belt positioners to be regulated by Standard 213. Standard 213
does not apply to devices recommended for children weighing over 50 lb,
which, NHTSA believes, is the recommended weight range for the users of
most, if not all, positioners. Further, even if the current
requirements of Standard 213 were extended to such devices, there is
some question of whether those requirements could effectively assess
belt positioners.
If the current test procedure and injury criteria of Standard 213
were used to test and evaluate the devices, it appears that belt
positioners would generally pass Standard 213 when tested in accordance
with the standard, i.e., with the 6-year-old dummy. This conformance
would leave unaddressed and even obscure the question of whether the
standard would be able to distinguish between acceptable and
unacceptable performance of belt positioners. Belt positioning devices
can cause the lap belt to rise above the hips in a crash and press into
the soft abdominal area instead of staying lower and lying across the
child's hips, thereby increasing the potential for abdominal injury.
Currently there are no abdominal sensors on the child dummies used by
NHTSA in compliance testing, or injury criteria developed, and thus no
way to evaluate the potential for abdominal injury using the existing
test protocols of Standard 213.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Similarly, belt positioning devices increased neck load and
moments in the VRTC tests when used with the 5th percentile female
dummy compared to baseline conditions (no device). No neck injury
assessment was performed using child dummies because child dummies
equipped with a neck load cell were not available at the time that
the VRTC test program was conducted. On September 18, 1998, NHTSA
proposed to amend Standard 208 to require the use of new 12-month-,
3-year-, and 6-year-old dummies that are instrumented with load
cells to measure neck forces and moments when evaluating air bags in
frontal crashes (63 FR 49957). The proposal also included neck
injury criteria. If a procedure and criteria are adopted, seat belt
positioners and other child safety devices may be evaluated for
potential child neck injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Standard 213 were applied to belt positioners, some consumers
might erroneously conclude that a belt positioner certified to the
Federal standard would provide the same level of protection as a child
restraint system. Some parents might respond to the certification of
belt positioners by prematurely moving their child out of a child
safety seat into the vehicle seat belt system, believing that the
``certified'' belt positioner renders the vehicle belt system adequate
for the child. The premature ``graduation'' of a child to the vehicle
belt system would be contrary to NHTSA's recommendations on restraining
children and could degrade the child's crash protection.
NHTSA believes that children who cannot properly wear the vehicle
shoulder belt without a positioning device should still be using a
child restraint system, such as a toddler seat or a belt-positioning
booster, rather than the vehicle belt system. A toddler seat provides a
high back for neck support and typically has side supports that cushion
and protect the child in frontal and side impacts. Seat belt
positioners do not provide such protection. In addition, toddler seats
have an internal restraint system (a harness system which may include a
shield or shelf) which fits the child better than vehicle belts and
which does not allow direct contact of a vehicle lap belt with the
child. Thus, the child restraint diverts and distributes dynamic crash
forces away from vulnerable parts of the child's body. Further, a
toddler or booster seat is more comfortable for children whose legs are
too short to allow them to bend their knees when sitting upright
against the vehicle seat back. These children will slouch down when
seated directly on the vehicle seat cushion, so as to bend their knees,
and in doing so are likely to reposition the vehicle's lap belt over
the soft abdominal area.7 The more comfortable fit of the
child restraint system's platform seat therefore results in a safer fit
of the lap restraint, compared to the fit of the lap belt on a child
sitting directly on the vehicle cushion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Study of Older Child Restraint/Booster Seat Fit and NASS
Injury Analysis,'' Klinich, Pritz, Welty, et al., DOT HS 808 248,
November 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Older children who can fit in a belt-positioning booster seat would
be safer in such seats than seated on a vehicle seat using the vehicle
seat belts and a seat belt positioning device of the types discussed in
this document. The main object of belt positioning devices is to adjust
the shoulder belt portion of a Type II (lap and shoulder) belt so as
not to cross the child's face or neck. Booster seats achieve this
objective by raising the child in relation to the belts--rather than
vice versa, as with belt positioning devices--and thereby make it less
likely, than when using a positioning device, that the lap belt would
be positioned over the child's abdomen. Boosters provide a seating
platform that enable children to bend their knees without slouching,
which may occur when the child is seated directly on the vehicle seat.
As noted in the previous paragraph, slouching can result in the
repositioning of a lap belt over the child's soft abdominal area.
Booster seats also hold the child more securely and reduce the
likelihood that excessive slack will be introduced into the belt
system. Again, however, these differences would be obscured by the fact
that both the seat belt positioner and the booster seat would be
certified as complying with ``all applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety standards.'' Thus, consumers might mistakenly assume that both
offer comparable levels of protection when they would not.
To avoid this misunderstanding, NHTSA tentatively believes seat
belt positioners should not be considered as the same type of device as
a child restraint system, or regulated by Standard 213. Comments are
requested on this issue. (We also note, however, that use of booster
seats for children weighing more than 40 pounds has been
[[Page 44170]]
documented to be very low. The availability of belt positioning devices
may encourage some people to use the shoulder portion of a lap/shoulder
belt who otherwise would put the shoulder belt behind their back due to
physical discomfort. Putting the shoulder belt behind the back
dramatically decreases restraint effectiveness.)
Issue 4: Should the Devices Be Subject to Performance Requirements? If
Yes, What Requirements Would Be Appropriate?
Despite the tentative conclusion above, comments are requested
regarding a performance requirement, in lieu of or in addition to, a
labeling requirement. Comments are requested on the feasibility of
developing a practical procedure to dynamically test the performance of
these devices when used alone with the vehicle's belt system, and also
in conjunction with a child restraint system. If commenters are
supportive of performance requirements for seat belt positioners, NHTSA
requests that they provide methods by which to assess the injury
potential for areas of identified concern, such as abdominal and neck
loading. As noted above in this document, NHTSA issued a September 18,
1998 proposal to amend Standard 208, to require the use of new child
dummies that are instrumented with load cells to measure neck forces
and moments when evaluating air bags in frontal crashes. The proposal
included neck injury criteria. Comments are requested on the
appropriateness of using the proposed procedure and criteria for
evaluating neck injury potential using various child dummies restrained
in seat belt positioners.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The agency has considered the
impact of this rulemaking action under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures, and has determined
that it is not ``significant'' under them. NHTSA has prepared a
preliminary regulatory evaluation (PRE) for this document which
discusses issues relating to the potential costs, benefits and other
impacts of this regulatory action. The PRE is available in Docket No.
99-5100 and may be obtained by contacting Docket Management at the
address or telephone number provided at the beginning of this document.
You may also read the document via the Internet, by following the
instructions in the section below entitled, ``How can I read the
comments submitted by other people?'' The PRE will be listed in the
docket summary, along with the comments from other people.
The PRE notes that labeling positioners as proposed in this NPRM
could be beneficial in helping assure that young children are
restrained in the most appropriate manner for their size or age. This
would help prevent the degradation of safety benefits that occurs when
seat belts are not properly fitted across occupants' shoulders and
hips. However, we cannot currently quantify these benefits because no
data exist to determine the target population. The PRE estimates that
labeling costs resulting from the proposed labeling requirements of
this NPRM could be $0.05 to $0.08 for the manufacturer's cost,
depending on the type of label used, and between $0.12 and $0.19 per
positioner for the consumer. The cost to label the roughly 1.7 million
positioners sold annually is expected to be between $204,000 and
$323,000.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354), as
amended, requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their
proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions. Section 603 of the Act requires
agencies to prepare and make available for public comment a preliminary
regulatory flexibility analysis (PRFA) describing the impact of
proposed rules on small entities. NHTSA has included a PRFA in the PRE
for this proposal.
Business entities are generally defined as small businesses by
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, for the purposes of
receiving Small Business Administration assistance. One of the criteria
for determining size, as stated in 13 CFR 121.601, is the number of
employees in the firm. To qualify as a small business in the Motor
Vehicle Parts and Accessories category (SIC 3714), the firm must have
fewer than 750 employees. The agency has considered the small business
impacts of this proposed rule based on this criterion.
The PRFA discusses the possible impacts of this action on small
businesses that manufacture belt positioning devices and requests
information that would assist NHTSA in further analyzing those impacts.
As noted above, possible labeling costs resulting from the labeling
provisions of this NPRM are estimated to be $0.05 to $0.08 for the
manufacturer's cost. Added consumer costs could be from $0.12 to $0.19.
The agency tentatively believes that the cost increase would not
significantly raise the price of seat belt positioners, and would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and the
agency has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. A
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceeding will
not be a prerequisite to an action seeking judicial review of this
rule. This proposed rule would not preempt the states from adopting
laws or regulations on the same subject, except that it would preempt a
state regulation that is in actual conflict with the Federal regulation
or makes compliance with the Federal regulation impossible or
interferes with the implementation of the Federal statute.
Comments
How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
[[Page 44171]]
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, take the following steps:
(1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
(2) On that page, click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document.
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1999-1234,'' you would type
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
(4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments.
You may download the comments. However, since the comments are
imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded
comments are not word searchable.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 575
Consumer protection, Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles.
PART 575--[AMENDED] CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Part 575 as set forth below.
1. The authority citation for Part 575 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 575.4(a) would be revised to read as follows:
Subpart A--General
* * * * *
Sec. 575.4 Application
(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of
this section, each section set forth in subpart B of this part applies,
according to its terms, to motor vehicles, tires and items of motor
vehicle equipment manufactured after the effective date indicated.
* * * * *
3. Section 575.101 would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 575.101 Seat belt positioners
(a) Scope. This section requires manufacturers of seat belt
positioners to provide information about the correct use of the devices
and warn against the use of the devices with small children.
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide purchasers
information related to the performance of seat belt positioners with
small children.
(c) Application. This section applies to seat belt positioners that
are not an integral part of a motor vehicle.
(d) Definitions. Seat belt positioner means a device, other than a
belt-positioning seat, that is manufactured to alter the positioning of
Type I and/or Type II belt systems in motor vehicles.
(e) Requirements. Each manufacturer of a seat belt positioner shall
permanently label the device with the following information:
(1) The model name or number of the system.
(2) The manufacturer's name, or a distributor's name, if the
distributor assumes responsibility for all duties and liabilities
imposed on the manufacturer with respect to the device by 49 U.S.C.
30101 et seq.
(3) The place of manufacture (city and State, or foreign country),
or the location (city and State, or foreign country) of the principal
offices of the distributor, if the distributor's name is used instead
of the manufacturer's name.
(4) A statement warning that the device must not be used with
children under the age of six [alternatively, or additionally, under
the height of 47.5 inches (1206 mm).]
(5) The statement: ``Make sure that this device positions the lap
belt low across the child's hips and not on the stomach. The shoulder
belt must be snug and on the child's shoulder, not near the neck or off
the shoulder.''
Issued on August 9, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-20950 Filed 8-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P