Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Christopher A. Hart
Federal Register
April 5, 1994
[Federal Register: April 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-09; Notice 36]
RIN 2127-AE60
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, to
create an exception to the requirement that a restraint must not change
its adjustment position during dynamic compliance testing. A change in
adjustment positions of a rear-facing restraint, i.e., infant
restraint, is permitted subject to a requirement intended to ensure
that the design allowing such movement will not injure the infant.
The amendment will permit the production of restraints specially
designed for infants with apnea or other breathing problems. To
facilitate breathing by these infants, these restraints allow infants
to ride in the reclined position under normal driving conditions.
However, when the restraint is subjected to the forces of a frontal
vehicle crash, a portion of the restraint adjusts so that the infants
move into an upright, rear-facing position. In this position, the crash
forces are spread over the full torso and the back of the infant's head
is supported, thus reducing the chance of injury.
DATES: This rule is effective on May 5, 1994.
Petitions for reconsideration of the rule must be received by May
5, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, room 5220,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George Mouchahoir, Office of
Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone
202-366-4919).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document amends the requirement in
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint
Systems,'' that a child restraint with adjustable (reclinable)
positions must not change its adjustment position during dynamic
testing (S5.1.1(b)). The purpose of the requirement is to prevent a
child's fingers or limbs from being caught between the shifting parts
of the restraint. Today's rule permits a change in adjustment positions
of a rear-facing restraint system, i.e., infant restraint, provided
that the restraint meets a requirement intended to ensure such movement
will not injure the child. The amendments made by this document were
proposed in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on May 26,
1993 (58 FR 30134). NHTSA commenced this rulemaking action in response
to a petition for rulemaking from Century Products Company.
The provisions adopted in today's document are substantially
similar to those NHTSA proposed in the May 1993 NPRM. This rule permits
an infant restraint to have a means for repositioning the seating
surface of the restraint that allows an infant to move from a reclined
position to an upright position during a frontal crash. To protect the
infant during that change in adjustment position, the rule regulates
exposed openings in the restraint structure. No opening that is exposed
and is larger than 1/4 inch (6.35 mm) before the testing is permitted
to become smaller during the movement of the seating surface relative
to the restraint system as a whole. This rule also requires that the
printed instructions accompanying each rear-facing child restraint
system that has a means for repositioning the seating surface of the
system include a warning against impeding the ability of the restraint
to change adjustment position.
Infant Restraints
An infant restraint is a child restraint system, except a car bed,
that positions a child so that the child faces toward the rear of the
motor vehicle. Most infant restraints are conventional rear-facing
seats which are designed for infants only, and are intended to be
installed so that the infant faces the rear of the vehicle. There are
other child restraints that are convertible into two different modes.
In one mode, these restraints are rear-facing so that they can be used
by infants. In the other mode, these restraints are forward-facing so
that they can be used by toddlers. (When the term ``infant restraint''
is used below, it refers both to infant seats which are exclusively for
infants and to the infant mode of convertible child restraints.)
Infant restraints are designed to meet infants' particular physical
needs. An infant cannot be seated in a completely upright position
since its neck muscles are not strong enough to enable the infant to
hold its head upright. An infant restraint must be designed, therefore,
so that it supports the infant's spine and head in a partially inclined
position. At the same time, an infant must be positioned sufficiently
upright and rear-facing so that in a crash, the forces are spread
evenly across the infant's back and shoulders, the strongest part of an
infant's body. Further, an infant restraint positions the back of the
child's head against the restraint's seating surface in a crash. This
helps to prevent severe neck injuries.
Century's Petition
Century submitted its petition because it wishes to produce an
infant restraint that, under normal driving conditions, would allow the
infant to lie on its back in a more reclined position than is possible
in current infant restraints, with the infant's head nearest the front
of the vehicle and its feet nearest the rear of the vehicle. To provide
proper protection in a frontal crash, a portion of the infant seat,
including the surface on which the infant is resting, would change
position by rotating upwards and toward the front of the vehicle so
that the child would be rear-facing and almost upright. As a result,
the crash forces would be applied to and spread across the infant's
neck and shoulders. In the almost upright mode, the restraint would
provide occupant protection similar to that provided by infant seats
lacking the capability of dynamic readjustment.
The petitioner described three ways in which safety could be
improved if infant seats were allowed to change adjustment positions in
a crash. First, the petitioner believes designing an infant seat so
that it changes adjustment positions during a frontal crash could
reduce the crash forces imposed on the child. The movement due to the
change in position could help dissipate the stored kinetic energy
during the initial stage of a frontal crash (i.e., when the momentum of
the child and rear-facing seat are causing them to attempt to move
toward the front of the vehicle).
The second improvement in safety relates to what Century stated was
the primary advantage of the new seat. The petitioner believed the seat
would enable a child to travel in a more reclined position than is
possible with current infant seats. The petitioner said that this would
benefit premature, apnea-prone infants, and infants with other
breathing problems. Included in Century's petition was the petitioner's
public service message on ``positional apnea.'' It explains the
problems that infants with positional apnea have when riding in current
infant restraints:
Positional Apnea is a breathing difficulty that could occur when
very small infants are positioned in an upright angle in infant
products such as car seats, car beds, strollers, carriers, swings,
etc. Because of their tiny bodies and weak necks, small infants are
in danger of Positional Apnea. If the angle of the child in the
infant product is too steep, the infant's head may fall forward far
enough to choke off his/her air supply. Depending on the positioning
of the child in an infant product, the risk to the child may be
increased.
* * * * *
To explain its reasons for believing a change to S5.1.1(b) would
help children with apnea, Century submitted articles and statements
from members of the medical community on positional apnea. These
materials are fully discussed in the NPRM. They include a July 1990
policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics on the safe
transportation of premature infants, which states that some infants,
particularly premature, low-weight infants, may be subject to oxygen
desaturation when placed in an upright position in infant restraints.
Century argued that the articles indicate a need for new infant
restraint designs that are specially designed, such as the infant seat
the petitioner wishes to produce.
The third advantage of the seat relates to improved positioning of
all infants in infant restraints. Infant restraints are tested by NHTSA
for compliance with FMVSS No. 213 on a ``standard seat assembly,''
which is an essentially horizontal vehicle seat cushion. The ``standard
seat assembly'' is specified in S7.3 of the standard. If the vehicle
seat cushions actually being installed in vehicles are not horizontal,
but slant downward to the rear, as they do in some newer model cars, an
infant restraint placed on that vehicle seat cushion would be tilted
rearward. Thus, an infant riding in the infant restraint would likely
sit more upright than if the infant restraint were placed on a
horizontal vehicle seat cushion. A restraint's back support surface
that is too upright might not be able to provide adequate support to
the infant's head and neck. Century said that its new infant restraint
would compensate for the effect that a slanting vehicle seat cushion
may have on infant restraints.
The NPRM
The NPRM proposed amending S5.1.1 to permit infant restraints to
have a means for enabling the seating surface of the system to adjust
during testing so that the restraint's occupant would move from a
reclined position to an upright position. Under the NPRM, the movement
of the seating surface during testing, relative to the restraint as a
whole, had to be unidirectional rotation or translation. The NPRM also
proposed that no opening in the restraint structure that is exposed and
is larger than \1/4\ inch (6.35 mm) before the testing shall become
smaller during the testing as a result of the movement of the seating
surface relative to the restraint as a whole.
Comments were expressly sought on the following issues. First,
whether movement of the seating surface during dynamic testing should
be permitted for child restraints other than infant restraints. Second,
whether movement during dynamic testing must occur only
unidirectionally in a rotational or translational motion. Third,
whether there should be greater leeway in how exposed openings may
close. In addition, the NPRM sought comments on whether a change in
infant restraint adjustment position during a sudden deceleration
should be permitted as a potential way of protecting children from
injury that might otherwise result from an air bag impacting the child
restraint during a crash.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\For a discussion of potential dangers of an air bag to an
infant in a rear-facing child restraint, see 59 FR 7643, February
16, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
NHTSA received eight comments on the NPRM. Commenters were Century,
Ford, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety, Congressman Thomas C. Sawyer of Ohio, and three private
individuals interested in child seat safety (Messrs. Jerome Koziatek,
Donald Friedman and Jonathan Sebring).
All the commenters, except Mr. Sebring, generally believed motion
in a restraint system will benefit safety. Mr. Koziatek believed that
changes in vehicle interiors (e.g., air bags, three-point belts, more
restricted occupant space) have made it more difficult for child
restraints to protect the child occupant, and that permitting motion
will help attenuate the deceleration forces in a crash in a manner that
is more beneficial than other means. (He did not specify those other
means.) Century emphasized its belief that permitting motion will
enable the manufacture of restraints that can transport children with
positional apnea.
In the more medically correct position. That is, by transporting
the child in a more horizontal position, those seven percent of
children born that are considered low birth weight will be at a
lower risk.
Some commenters expressed qualified support. Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety believed the idea of movement in a rear-facing child
restraint ``has much to recommend it.'' However, the commenter was
concerned about possible adverse side effects resulting from the change
in adjustment position, such as from abrupt movement of the restraint,
and movement that can cause injury to fingers. Similarly, Ford said it
``supports the concept that allowing controlled change of adjusted
position during dynamic testing may reap safety benefits, but suggests
that further evaluation of the concept be conducted.'' Ford expressed
concern about the effect of an abrupt cessation of the movement of the
child restraint, such as if the restraint were to rotate into the
instrument panel. ``An abrupt stop to the rotation of the restraint,
for example, could result in significant dummy neck tension.'' The
American Academy of Pediatrics stated that it supports NHTSA's efforts
to amend Standard 213 to allow for the development of rear-facing
restraints that can safely transport premature and low-weight infants
in a less upright position. However, that commenter said there should
be restrictions on the amount and type of movement that is allowed,
because sudden movement from a horizontal to an upright position can be
difficult for a medically fragile child. The Academy was also concerned
about protecting the fingers and hands of both the child occupant and
adjacent children from injury from exposed openings.
Mr. Sebring commented on the NPRM after reviewing what he said was
a video animation of Century's new restraint exhibited at a juvenile
products show. Mr. Sebring was concerned that a child in a restraint
that changes adjustment position can experience acceleration levels on
its chest cavity that are not experienced with current restraints. The
commenter suggested NHTSA adopt a rule that permits motion only after
analyzing data from a test dummy that measures G forces, and specify
limits on the G forces that are imposed on a dummy placed in the
restraint.
Agency Decision
NHTSA is amending S5.1.1(b) of Standard 213 to remove the
restriction against an infant restraint's changing adjustment position
during testing. The agency believes safety will not be degraded by this
amendment, since a provision has been adopted to minimize possible
safety risks resulting from a restraint's changing adjustment positions
in a crash. That provision relates to the closing of exposed openings.
The agency will examine infant restraint accident data and consider
appropriate action if changing the position of an infant restraint's
seating surface has any adverse effect on safety. At present, NHTSA
does not know of any information indicating the possibility of a
negative safety impact. In fact, NHTSA believes there are several
potential positive impacts.
Those positive impacts were discussed in the NPRM as reasons why
the agency was reexamining the prohibition against change of adjustment
position during testing. Since the 1970's, when the prohibition was
adopted, more has been learned about the proper positioning of apnea-
prone children in car seats. Century documented the need for infant
restraints that position apnea-prone infants in a more horizontal
position. The agency concludes S5.1.1(b) should be amended so that it
does not impede the development of new child seat designs for apnea-
prone infants. NHTSA recognizes that the market for infant restraints
that change adjustment positions may extend beyond the parents of
apnea-prone children, and that this may result in a greater number of
infants being exposed to the effects of the new type of infant
restraint with its changing adjustment position. However, the agency is
unable to estimate the extent of the possible appeal to the greater
population of parents.
Advocates requested information about ``the number of premature and
low-birth weight infants who are at risk because they are being
transported in currently marketed child restraints.'' According to the
Vital and Health Statistics Report of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 6.9 percent of the 3,910,000 births in 1988 were of low
birth weight (``low birth weight'' is defined as a birth weight of less
than 2,500 grams (5 pounds, 8 ounces)). That is a total of 267,790
babies. In 1989, the low birth rate increased to 7 percent, resulting
in 282,868 low-birth weight babies out of 4,040,972 babies.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\NHTSA submitted this information to Docket No. PRM-213-022-01
on September 4, 1992 as an addendum to Century's rulemaking
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another factor that changed since the 1970's is the change in
vehicle seat designs that have occurred in recent years. As explained
above and in the NPRM, vehicle seat designs have changed such that
infants typically are positioned more upright in infant restraints
placed in current model vehicles than in vehicles of the late 1970's
and early 1980's. A restraint that enables the child to ride in a more
reclined position than a conventional infant restraint could enhance
the transportation of infants generally, and could benefit apnea-prone
children in particular.
The agency also considered the interaction of infant restraints
with air bags in deciding to issue this rule. Ford stated that it is
possible that an infant restraint could be developed that would reduce
the risk of interaction with an air bag, if the restraint could keep
the infant in a supine position below the level of air bag inflation,
prior to movement to a more vertical position. However, Ford also noted
it is possible that an air bag would likely begin to inflate before or
shortly after a movable rear-facing infant restraint would begin to
move into a more vertical position. ``Movement of the infant seat to a
vertical position would likely be somewhat limited by the inflating air
bag.* * *'' The American Academy of Pediatrics expressed its desire to
see an infant restraint that can be safely used with an air bag. ``If
the opportunity to develop a child restraint that utilizes movement
proves to improve this serious incompatibility problem, we certainly
would be in favor of such a device.''
While at present there is no infant restraint that can be safely
used with an air bag, vehicle and child restraint manufacturers have
undertaken research to develop compatible restraint systems. Ford's
comment illustrates that an amendment to permit motion in infant
restraints could provide some of the needed flexibility to vehicle and
infant seat manufacturers to improve present vehicle and infant seat
designs to achieve compatibility. While Ford did not seem to believe
motion in an infant seat such as that provided for by this rule would
in itself achieve compatibility, NHTSA hopes that air bag-compatible
infant restraints will be developed in the near future. Century has
demonstrated the practicability of a design that can meet both the need
of an infant to be upright in a crash and the need to be supine while
under normal driving circumstances. NHTSA believes today's amendment
might act as a catalyst for the development of infant seat designs that
use motion to manage crash forces.
With regard to Mr. Sebring's concerns that a child in an infant
restraint that changes adjustment positions during a test can
experience acceleration levels on its chest cavity that are not
experienced with current restraints, no information was submitted to
support this assertion. Further, given that there is no information
showing there will be potential safety problems with restraints that
change adjustment position, NHTSA does not agree that this rulemaking
should be delayed pending research on a test dummy that measures G
forces experienced by occupants of these restraints.
Forward-Facing Restraints
Several commenters wanted the prohibition against changing
adjustment positions during testing to be removed for all types of
child restraints. Century, Ford, and Mr. Koziatek suggested removing
the prohibition for forward-facing toddler restraints.
NHTSA has decided not to permit change in adjustment position for
other types of restraints. Today's amendment permits such change for
rear-facing child seats only. In the case of convertible seats with an
infant mode, change would be permitted in the infant mode only.
The agency's reasons for adopting the amendment, discussed in the
preceding section, are relevant to infant restraints, but not other
child restraints. This amendment does not eliminate the prohibition for
forward-facing child seats because there is insufficient reason for
doing so. In addition to preventing a child's fingers or limbs from
being caught between the shifting parts of the restraint, the
prohibition serves to prevent a child seated in a forward-facing child
restraint from submarining (i.e., sliding too far forward and downward,
legs first) during the crash. The prohibition has been an effective and
simple approach to accomplishing those purposes. There is no
information that weighs in favor of removing the prohibition for
forward-facing restraints, such as information indicating that a change
in adjustment position could protect forward-facing children from
injury from an inflating air bag.
Mr. Friedman suggested removing the prohibition for car beds. He
also suggested S5.1.1 of Standard 213 be amended to permit ``permanent
deformation'' of the interior surface of a restraint as a means of
providing crash protection for the occupant. Mr. Friedman's suggestions
are outside the scope of the rulemaking, and have not been adopted by
this rule.
Limits on Motion
This rule does not adopt the proposal that movement of the
restraint's seating surface relative to the system as a whole during
testing must be unidirectional rotation or translation. Several
commenters addressed this issue. Century requested that the rule permit
the child seat to reverse its direction during the dynamic test of
Standard 213. According to the petitioner:
If NHTSA does not permit the restraint to return to its more
horizontal position after the crash, we believe that you have
continued to maintain the risk for the [apnea-prone] child that this
change was intended to eliminate.
Ford said NHTSA should ``evaluate the risks involved in abrupt
cessation of the movement of the child restraint.'' (NHTSA assumes the
reference to ``abrupt cessation'' relates to what Ford believed would
result from the proposed requirement that the movement must be
unidirectional rotation or translation.) In contrast, Mr. Sebring
believed the motion must be only unidirectional rotation or
translation. The commenter believed ``there are obvious bending moments
produced in the occupant's neck as a result of whiplash action which
occurs when the restraint returns post-impact to its original
horizontal position.''
After reviewing the comments, NHTSA has decided not to adopt the
unidirectional requirement. The agency agrees with Century that it
would make sense for the infant restraint to return to its original
horizontal position after a crash. If the restraint did not return to
the original position, an apnea-prone infant restrained in the seat
would remain in the upright position, which is the position the child
should not be in for any prolonged period of time. Also, having the
restraint return to the supine position may be beneficial in a multiple
impact crash if the restraint rotated upright in the second or
subsequent impact. The movement from a supine to a nearly upright
position could help dissipate the stored kinetic energy during the
crash because part of the energy of the crash may be consumed by the
motion of the restraint (in changing adjustment position). Part of the
energy of the crash may also be consumed by frictional forces of the
restraint's moving parts, e.g., springs and other mechanisms, that may
be used to engage the movement of the child seating surface.
Mr. Sebring's comment in support of a unidirectional requirement
accorded with NHTSA's tentative determination in the NPRM that a
unidirectional requirement could minimize possible stresses on the neck
of the infant. However, NHTSA has concluded there is insufficient
information on this issue justifying a unidirectional requirement,
particularly in view of the potential benefits (discussed in the
preceding paragraph) of permitting an infant restraint to return to the
original horizontal position.
Mr. Sebring believed that the return of the restraint to the
original horizontal position will result in ``obvious bending moments''
in the occupant's neck ``as a result of whiplash action.'' Information
supporting this assertion is unavailable. To evaluate the claims of Mr.
Sebring, NHTSA requested that Century provide a copy of the videotape
that Century presented at the juvenile products show that Mr. Sebring
attended. (NHTSA has placed the video Century provided in NHTSA Docket
Number 74-09; Notice 30.) Contrary to the commenter's description about
what he allegedly saw happening to a dummy restrained in Century's
restraint, the video did not show any dummy occupying the displayed
child restraint. NHTSA was unable to clarify Mr. Sebring's comment. The
agency repeatedly attempted to contact Mr. Sebring for information
clarifying the references to the videotape and to the ``obvious bending
moments'' it appeared he saw, but NHTSA could not reach Mr. Sebring at
his given telephone number, and there was no listing for him in the
given area code.
In any event, the agency's evaluation of the film provided by
Century did not reveal movement in the child restraint that would cause
``obvious bending moments'' in the neck of a child occupant.
Nevertheless, while there is no information at this time indicating a
safety need to adopt a unidirectional requirement for the motion of the
restraint, NHTSA will monitor accident data to evaluate whether neck
injuries are occurring in infant seats that change adjustment position
in a crash.
The American Academy of Pediatrics suggested that there should be
some restrictions on the amount and type of movement allowed.
It is important that moveable parts should not be able to move
too easily and should move only upon impact. Sudden movement from a
horizontal to an upright position can be difficult for a medically
fragile child and should only occur when absolutely necessary.
NHTSA is not specifying limits on the ease with which an infant
restraint can change adjustment position. The agency believes such
limits are unnecessary because as a practical matter, a restraint that
too easily changes adjustment position from the supine to the upright
position negates the benefits the restraint is designed to provide to
apnea-prone infants. NHTSA believes that manufacturers who wish to
market restraints for apnea-prone infants will not design a restraint
that ends up transporting the infants in a position that is too upright
for their breathing condition. Also, NHTSA believes that manufacturers
have a commercial incentive to design a suitable threshold force into
the restraint to trigger the release mechanism, since a restraint that
too easily changes adjustment positions could appear unsafe,
uncomfortable and thus unattractive to consumers. In any event, NHTSA
will also evaluate the performance of these restraints and monitor
accident data on this issue, to see whether a safety need emerges to
limit how easily an infant restraint can change adjustment position.
Openings
Several commenters addressed the proposal to prohibit openings that
are exposed and are at least \1/4\ inch in diameter before the testing
from becoming smaller during testing due to the movement of the seating
surface relative to the restraint system as a whole. Most of these
commenters supported the proposal. Century requested that openings
greater than \1/4\ inch in diameter should be permitted to become
smaller if the opening is no smaller than 1\1/2\ inches at the
conclusion of testing. The commenter did not provide information on why
that value would be more appropriate than the proposed value. Since a
child or adult seated next to a rotating infant seat can be injured if
a hand were caught in an opening whose diameter were reduced to 1\1/2\
inches, Century's request is denied.
On a related matter, the agency wishes to clarify a statement in
the NPRM. NHTSA indicated a belief in the NPRM that changes in child
seat designs (from exposed tubular steel frames to molded plastic ones)
might have obviated the safety need for a prohibition against a change
in adjustment position. Two commenters did not agree with that
statement. The American Academy of Pediatrics said it was not convinced
that the risk of injury to a child's fingers has been removed because
of the type of material from which restraints are presently made. Mr.
Sebring said a return to tubular steel frames could occur in the
future, especially since future designs could be patterned after the
``ISO-FIX,'' a child restraint system that the European community is
developing with standardized features for installation in vehicles. Mr.
Sebring believes features of the ISO-FIX design could necessitate a
return to tubular steel frames, if the design were eventually used in
this country. (He did not specify the features to which he referred.)
To clarify the agency's statement, the agency believed that the
type of child restraint design made possible through the use of plastic
molded frames might have obviated the need for the requirement in
question. However, NHTSA has reconsidered this issue. The agency
concludes that a requirement protecting against injury to fingers and
hands due to shifting child restraint parts is needed to ensure present
and future child seat designs do not have dangerous parts that can trap
and injure hands and fingers.
Printed Instructions
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety suggested that NHTSA require
that the printed instructions accompanying a rear-facing restraint
designed for children with apnea or other breathing problems include
information on how these children should be positioned while being
transported in a motor vehicle. That suggestion is beyond the scope of
the NPRM and has not been adopted. Advocates also suggested that NHTSA
require that the printed instructions include information telling the
consumer not to impede the ability of the restraint to change
adjustment position. The agency concludes that requiring this
information for infant restraints that are designed to change
adjustment position is within the scope of the rulemaking. The
information relates to the real-world operation of the restraint in a
crash. This rulemaking, which permits the manufacture of a new type of
infant restraint system, rests on NHTSA's conclusion that the new
system can afford adequate crash protection provided that the restraint
changes adjustment position in a crash. If the movement of the
restraint's seating surface were to be impeded by the consumer in some
manner, the primary means of crash protection provided by the restraint
would be negated. It is crucial that the consumer not impede the
movement of the restraint, and be instructed on the matter. Therefore,
such instructions will be required.
Effective Date
This rule is effective 30 days after its publication date. The
shorter than usual effective date is based on the effect of the
amendment to relieve design restrictions and facilitate the manufacture
of a new type of infant seat. Because the rule relieves a restriction,
there is good cause for making it effective in 30 days.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) 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
impacts of this rulemaking action and has determined that this action
is not ``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA has further
determined that the effects of this rulemaking are so minimal that
preparation of a full preliminary regulatory evaluation is not
warranted. The agency believes that manufacturers will be minimally
affected by this rulemaking because it simply permits new designs in
infant restraints and does not require any design change or impose
additional costs on manufacturers. Manufacturers that do not want to
manufacture an infant restraint that can change adjustment positions
will not be affected.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The agency knows of fourteen manufacturers of child
restraints, seven of which NHTSA considers to be small businesses
(including Kolcraft, which with an estimated 500 employees, is on the
borderline of being a small business). These businesses do not comprise
a substantial number of small entities that are affected by this rule.
Regardless of the number of small businesses, this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on these entities. The rule will
affect manufacturers only if they choose to manufacture an infant
restraint that can change adjustment positions in Standard 213's
dynamic test. The amendment may benefit manufacturers by allowing them
to manufacture and sell a new product. However, based on manufacturers'
responses to the NPRM, it does not appear that manufacturers other than
Century will manufacture and sell such a product. The amendment may
provide benefits to apnea-prone children by allowing manufacturers to
produce an infant restraint that can position these children in a
manner more appropriate for their condition. However, the agency does
not have information to estimate those possible benefits.
Small organizations and governmental jurisdictions procure infant
restraints for programs such as loaner programs. NHTSA does not believe
the costs of infant restraints will be increased by this rule. Thus,
these entities will not be significantly affected by this rule.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and the agency has
determined that this rule 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 will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section
103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety
Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not
identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state
requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to
vehicles procured for the State's use. Section 105 of the Safety Act
(15 U.S.C. 1394) sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final
rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for
reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may
file suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
PART 571--[AMENDED]
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
set forth below.
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 571.213 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 571.213, S4 is amended by adding in alphabetical order
the following definition:
S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
Rear-facing child restraint system means a child restraint system,
except a car bed, that positions a child to face in the direction
opposite to the normal direction of travel of the motor vehicle.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 571.213, S5.1.1 is revised, and S5.6.1.8 and S5.6.1.9
are added, to read as follows:
S5.1.1 Child restraint system integrity. When tested in accordance
with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural
element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a
radius of less than \1/4\ inch or surfaces with protrusions greater
than \3/8\ inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable
surface of any structural element of the system.
(b)(1) If adjustable to different positions, remain in the same
adjustment position during the testing that it was in immediately
before the testing, except as otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(2).
(2)(i) Subject to paragraph (b)(2)(ii), a rear-facing child
restraint system may have a means for repositioning the seating surface
of the system that allows the system's occupant to move from a reclined
position to an upright position and back to a reclined position during
testing.
(ii) No opening that is exposed and is larger than \1/4\ inch
before the testing shall become smaller during the testing as a result
of the movement of the seating surface relative to the restraint system
as a whole.
(c) If a front facing child restraint system, not allow the angle
between the system's back support surfaces for the child and the
system's seating surface to be less than 45 degrees at the completion
of the test.
* * * * *
S5.6.1.8 [Reserved]
S5.6.1.9 In the case of each rear-facing child restraint system
that has a means for repositioning the seating surface of the system
that allows the system's occupant to move from a reclined position to
an upright position during testing, the instructions shall include a
warning against impeding the ability of the restraint to change
adjustment position.
* * * * *
Issued on March 30, 1994.
Christopher A. Hart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-8033 Filed 4-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P