[Federal Register: March 23, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 56)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13503-13504]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23mr04-29]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 575
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-5100]
RIN 2127-AG49
Consumer Information Regulations; Seat Belt Positioners
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Withdrawal of rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking
published in 1999 in response to a petition for rulemaking from the
American Academy of Pediatrics. After considering the comments on the
NPRM and the advancements that have been attained in the testing of
child passenger protection devices, the agency has decided not to
proceed with the NPRM's proposed labeling requirement. Before taking
further action in this area, the agency would like to expand its
knowledge base with data from up-to-date tests of current belt
positioners, using the advanced test protocols and child test dummies
available today. Because NHTSA will not be able to conclude its
analysis of the issues of this rulemaking in the near future, we have
decided to withdraw the August 1999 NPRM.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call
Mike Huntley, NHTSA Office of Rulemaking, at (202) 366-0029.
For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief
Counsel, (202) 366-2992.
You may send mail to both of these officials at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington,
DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document withdraws a rulemaking that began in response to a
January 31, 1996 petition from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
that requested that the agency regulate aftermarket seat belt
positioners under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
213, ``Child Restraint Systems'' (49 CFR 571.213). AAP stated in its
petition that, because seat belt positioners are generally marketed as
child occupant protection devices, the products should be subject to
the same scrutiny and testing that child restraint systems undergo. AAP
was concerned that some seat belt positioners ``appear to interfere
with proper lap and shoulder harness fit by positioning the lap belt
too high on the abdomen, the shoulder harness too low across the
shoulder, and by allowing too much slack in the shoulder harness.''
Accordingly, AAP believed that the devices should be subject to a
safety standard so that they would be required to meet a minimum level
of performance.
On August 13, 1999 (64 FR 44164, Docket No. 99-5100), NHTSA granted
the petition and published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
sought to regulate seat belt positioners by way of a consumer
information regulation. The NPRM discussed the results of a study \1\
that the agency had conducted in 1994 on three seat belt positioners
that were then on the market. In the study, the agency dynamically
tested the belt positioning devices under the conditions then-specified
for testing child restraints under FMVSS No. 213. A Hybrid II 3-year-
old and 6-year-old dummy were used (which, in 1994, were the state-of-
the-art dummies used to test child restraints), and a Hybrid III 5th
percentile female adult dummy. NHTSA restrained the dummies in lap/
shoulder belts with, and without, the devices, and compared the
results. In many of the tests with the 3-year-old dummy, the
positioners reduced belt performance and contributed toward excessive
head injury criterion (HIC) measurements (HIC values were greater than
1000). In one case, the measured chest acceleration exceeded the FMVSS
No. 213 limit of 60 g's. The devices generally performed adequately
with the 6-year-old dummy with respect to HIC, in that the performance
criteria of FMVSS No. 213 were not exceeded. However, one positioner
had chest g measurements exceeding the FMVSS No. 213 limit in both
frontal and offset tests. In each case, there was some reduction in the
performance of the vehicle belt system restraining the dummy.\2\ After
reviewing these results, the agency proposed to require seat belt
positioners to be labeled as not suitable for children under age 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Evaluation of Devices to Improve Shoulder Belt Fit,'' DOT
HS 808 383, Sullivan and Chambers, August 1994.
\2\ HIC values greater than 1000 were observed with two of the
devices during 5 of 6 tests with the 5th percentile female dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM requested comments on four issues. The first issue was
whether there was a safety need for the rulemaking action. There were
no real-world data indicating that positioners were causing or
exacerbating injuries. The second issue pertained to whether the
devices should be labeled with a warning against using them with
children under age 6. Third was whether the devices should be regulated
by FMVSS No. 213. Then-existing child test dummies were not
instrumented to measure abdominal loads, and there was no injury
criterion developed that delineated between acceptable and unacceptable
abdominal loading. The fourth issue related to the feasibility of
adopting a performance requirement for seat belt positioners and the
performance criteria that would distinguish between acceptable and
unacceptable performance.
NHTSA received approximately 14 comments to the NPRM. Commenters
[[Page 13504]]
believed that, even absent the ability to quantify a safety problem
using existing crash data, seat belt positioning devices should be
regulated by means of a labeling and/or performance standard. Several
were concerned that consumers mistakenly think that the products are
regulated in the same way as booster seats and provide comparable
protection. Almost all of the commenters said that there should be a
label regarding the proper use of the devices. In opposition, a
manufacturer of a belt positioner questioned ``the logic behind
requiring a warning label without a testing standard.'' Almost all
believed that belt positioners should be differentiated from booster
seats, and that regulating the devices under FMVSS No. 213 could
mislead consumers into thinking that the two devices were
interchangeable. Most of the commenters supported having a performance
requirement for seat belt positioners to assess how the devices would
perform in a crash. However, some commenters stated that criteria
needed to assess the suitability of a seat belt positioner in providing
crash protection to a child (e.g., limits on abdominal and lumbar
spinal forces) are largely undeveloped.
After the NPRM was published, the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act of 2000 (the TREAD
Act) (November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800) was enacted,
which among other things, directed NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking for
the purpose of improving the safety of child restraints. The agency's
initiation of rulemaking resulted in a final rule, issued in June 2003,
that amended FMVSS No. 213 to incorporate advanced child test dummies
in the testing of child restraints and to revise the test conditions of
the standard to better represent current model passenger vehicles. 68
FR 37620; June 24, 2003; Docket No. NHTSA-03-15351. New state-of-the-
art Hybrid III test dummies representing a 12-month-old, 3-year-old and
6-year-old child were incorporated into the standard, as well as a
weighted 6-year-old dummy.
NHTSA's work developing a Hybrid III test dummy representing a 10-
year-old child was underway at the time of the TREAD Act, but was not
far enough along for the dummy to be included in that rulemaking. Now,
however, developmental work on the dummy is nearly complete.
Agency Decision
After considering the comments on the August 13, 1999 NPRM and the
advancements that have been attained in the testing of child passenger
protection devices, the agency has decided not to proceed with the
labeling requirement proposed in the NPRM. Before taking further action
in this area, the agency would like to augment the technical basis of
this rulemaking by supplementing the data obtained from the 1994 study
of three seat belt positioners with data from up-to-date tests of
current belt positioners, using the advanced test protocols and child
test dummies available today.
There still is no evidence of a real-world safety problem with seat
belt positioners. However, NHTSA has been directed by ``Anton's Law''
(Pub. L. 107-318, 116 Stat. 2772, December 4, 2002) to initiate
rulemaking to consider whether to establish injury performance criteria
and seat belt fit performance requirements for belt guidance devices.
Accordingly, rather than requiring labeling at this time, the agency
has initiated a targeted test program with the advanced child test
dummies, including the Hybrid III 10-year-old child test dummy, to
assess the need for and feasibility of developing performance
requirements for belt positioners.
We are especially interested in the potential use of the 10-year-
old dummy in evaluating forces that a seat belt positioner could
redirect to a child's abdominal and lumbar areas in a crash. That dummy
has a molded seated pelvis with anterior superior iliac spine load cell
attachment locations for measuring lap belt forces. The dummy's lumbar
and pelvis can also be adjusted to slouched or upright postures, so the
dummy can be used to assess performance of the belts and belt
positioners with slouching children. Children whose legs are too short
to allow them to bend their knees when sitting upright against the
vehicle seat back will slouch down when seated directly on the cushion
to bend their knees. ``Study of Older Child Restraint/Booster Seat Fit
and NASS Injury Analysis,'' Klinich et al., DOT HS 808 248, November
1994. This phenomenon, to which Klinich et al. refer as the ``slouch
factor,'' will affect placement of the lap belt portion of the seat
belt on the abdomen. (Discussion of the slouch factor's contribution to
poor belt fit can also be found at 64 FR at 44169, columns 2 and 3.) We
believe that the test program will provide useful data that will
enhance our ability to determine what regulatory approach, if any,
would be most appropriate to address belt fit on older children.
One anticipated use of the data will be to assess how labeling can
be made most effective at inducing parents to restrain children in a
way that is appropriate for those children. After reviewing the
comments on the NPRM, NHTSA became concerned that the labeling proposed
in the NPRM could be misconstrued by some parents as an agency
recommendation that it would be acceptable to restrain 6-year-old
children in a vehicle belt system if a belt-positioner were used. Such
a conclusion would be contrary to the recommendations of the agency
that 6-year-olds are best restrained when in a belt-positioning
booster.\3\ Any labeling that may eventually be required must be
careful not to induce parents to forego restraining their child in the
safest manner possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NHTSA recommends that children who have outgrown child
safety seats should be properly restrained in a booster seat until
they are at least 8 years old, unless they are 4'9'' tall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the complexity of the issues, the testing that will be
conducted pursuant to Anton's Law, and the limited resources of the
agency, NHTSA will not be able to conclude its analysis of the issues
of this rulemaking in the near future. We have therefore decided to
withdraw the August 1999 NPRM. Notwithstanding this withdrawal, it is
noted that seat belt positioners are items of motor vehicle equipment
and therefore their manufacturers are subject to the requirements in 49
U.S.C. 30119 and 30120 concerning the recall and remedy of products
with safety-related defects.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166 and Pub. L.
106-414, 114 Stat. 1800; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on March 17, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-6397 Filed 3-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P