Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Barry Felrice
Federal Register
May 27, 1994
[Federal Register: May 27, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-09; Notice 37]
RIN 2127-AF04
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for reconsideration from
Hassel Free, Inc., a manufacturer of built-in child restraints for
vans. Petitioner sought reconsideration of a rule that specifies built-
in restraints for vans are to be dynamically tested in the specific
vehicle into which the restraint is installed or in the shell of that
vehicle. Standard 213 specifies that the ``shell'' must have the
features of the vehicle interior that surround a built-in restraint.
Petitioner believed that requiring the shell to have these features
unduly burdens van converters. NHTSA is denying the petition because
the agency has determined that there is a safety need to test built-in
restraints in vehicle shells. Further, NHTSA is denying the petition
because the agency believes that van converters are not unduly
burdened.
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 relates to an April 1993 rule
that amended the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), for built-in child
restraint systems.
Background
In 1988, NHTSA amended Standard 213 to apply the standard to built-
in restraints, which the amendment defined as child restraint systems
which are ``an integral part of a passenger car.'' (53 FR 1783, January
22, 1988.) The amendment specified that these restraints must limit the
head and chest acceleration and knee excursion of a child test dummy
restrained in the system in a 30 mile per hour (mph) dynamic test. The
amendment specified that NHTSA will test a built-in restraint in the
specific vehicle in which it has been installed or in the ``specific
vehicle shell'' of such vehicle. The amendment defined ``specific
vehicle shell'' as the portion of the actual vehicle model into which
the built-in child restraint system is installed, including the
complete surroundings of the built-in system. (S4 of Standard 213.) For
example, S4 of Standard 213 specifies that----
If the built-in child restraint system is manufactured as part
of the rear seat, these surroundings include the back of the front
seat, the interior rear side door panels and trim, the rear seat,
the floor pan, the B and C pillars, and the ceiling. * * *
In 1993, NHTSA amended some of the provisions relating to built-in
systems. 58 FR 19776; April 16, 1993. Among other things, it amended
the definition of a built-in system to include restraints that are
designed to be an integral part of vehicles other than passenger cars.
As a result of this amendment, built-in systems for vans (which are
considered ``multipurpose passenger vehicles'' under NHTSA's
regulations, 49 CFR 571.3) became subject to the standard's dynamic
performance requirements. Under the amendment, the built-in restraints
for vans were required to restrain test dummies seated in the
restraints such that the head and chest accelerations and the knee
excursion of the dummies were within allowable limits specified in the
standard. As noted above, Standard 213 already had test procedures for
testing built-in systems for passenger cars, i.e., testing in the
specific vehicle or the specific vehicle shell. The amendment applied
these same procedures to built-in systems for vans. The amendment has
the effect of specifying that NHTSA is to dynamically test all built-in
systems in the specific vehicle in which the restraint is installed or
the specific vehicle shell of such vehicle.
Petition for reconsideration
NHTSA received a petition for reconsideration of the 1993 rule from
Hassel Free, Inc., a manufacturer of built-in child restraints for
vans. Hassel Free earlier had commented favorably on NHTSA's notice of
proposed rulemaking that preceded the April 1993 rule. Hassel Free
expressed concern in its petition about the test burdens that the
compliance test would impose on van converters, the parties to whom
Hassel Free sells its built-in restraints. Petitioner said that van
converters, which are typically small businesses, lack the resources to
test the built-in restraints in the specific vehicle shell.1
Hassel Free believed that van converters will choose not to purchase
and install built-in restraints rather than incur the costs of testing
the systems in the specific van shells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Petitioner focused its objections on testing built-in child
restraints in the specific vehicle shell instead of in the specific
vehicle. Presumably, Hassel Free objected to the former and not to
the latter because petitioner conducts, and anticipates van
converters conducting, the shell test and not the vehicle test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner suggested that instead of testing built-in restraints in
the specific vehicle shell, NHTSA should test built-in systems in a
manner used to test add-on (i.e., portable) child restraints. Add-on
restraints are dynamically tested on a ``standard seat assembly''
representative of a typical vehicle seat. The standard seat assembly
lacks the features of the vehicle that are in a vehicle shell, e.g.,
the back of a front seat, the interior rear side door panels and trim
or the vehicle floor pan. Petitioner said it would be less costly to
test a built-in restraint on a standard seat assembly that lacked the
features of the vehicle than on the specific vehicle shell with the
vehicle features. Hassel Free argued that it is unfair not to test
built-in systems in the same way as add-on systems since, petitioner
believed, built-in systems are safer than add-ons:
[B]uilt-in restraints have been demonstrated to significantly
out perform add-ons. Excursion in add-ons is significantly higher,
thus making a specific vehicle shell test more significant for these
restraints.
Agency Response
The agency has decided to deny Hassel Free's petition. NHTSA
disagrees with each of the arguments underlying the petition.
The first argument is that Standard 213's compliance test procedure
unduly burdens built-in restraint manufacturers. Petitioner did not
dispute that dynamically testing built-in systems for vans will better
ensure the safe performance of those restraints in crashes, or question
that manufacturers must bear some responsibility for ensuring that
their restraints will provide the level of crash protection required by
the standard. Instead, the petitioner suggested that NHTSA change the
means of conducting the dynamic test to lessen what the petitioner
believed were unnecessary burdens on small manufacturers.
The agency has decided against changing the test procedures after
considering the nexus between the standard's performance requirements
and the laboratory compliance test. Standard 213 specifies requirements
that reduce the likelihood that, in a crash, a child using a child
restraint system will be injured by the collapse or disintegration of
the system, or by contact with interior of the vehicle, or by
imposition of intolerable forces by the restraint system. Standard
213's dynamic test must simulate an actual vehicle crash to ensure that
these requirements are effective in protecting the child and that the
restraint will perform in the real world as it does in the laboratory.
For the most accurate evaluation, the simulation must be as
representative of a real world crash as possible.
Testing a built-in restraint in the specific vehicle shell
approximates a real world crash almost as nearly as possible. Only
testing a built-in restraint in an actual vehicle provides a better
approximation. The parts of the vehicle interior that are included in
the specific vehicle shell are those parts that a child positioned in
the system could contact during a frontal crash. 52 FR 9194, 9196;
March 23, 1987 (NPRM to permit built-in restraints in passenger cars).
Without those parts, the representativeness of the test would be
severely reduced, and the ability of the test to evaluate the safety of
a built-in system would be compromised.
It should be noted that it is because the shell replicates the
actual vehicle that Standard 213 does not specify limits on the head
excursion of the child dummy restrained in a built-in system. NHTSA
determined it is unnecessary to limit head excursion for built-in
restraints if the standard limits the head acceleration of the
restrained dummy and the dummy impacts in the shell any structure that
might be present in the vehicle in the real world. Id., at 9194. If
features of the vehicle interior that a child could impact are not
included in the apparatus that tests a built-in restraint, an
incomplete evaluation of the child seat's performance would result.
That is, it would be possible that head acceleration might be within
the limits of the standard even though a child's head could strike
harmful structures in the vehicle interior in an actual crash. For
these reasons, NHTSA concludes that the burden of testing a built-in
restraint in a specific vehicle shell is not undue.
Hassel Free made other arguments with which NHTSA does not agree.
Petitioner believed built-in restraints should be tested on a standard
seat assembly without the surrounding features of the vehicle interior
because built-in restraints universally outperform add-on restraints
with regard to head excursion. Petitioner did not provide any
information supporting this claim. Further, the agency does not believe
that a head excursion limit would be an appropriate measure of the
ability of a built-in system to provide head impact protection. A head
excursion limit is unnecessary for built-in child restraints because
these restraints will be tested in the actual environment (either in
the vehicle or in a vehicle shell that replicates the actual vehicle)
in which the restraint is installed in the real world, and because the
testing directly measures forces on the head of the restrained test
dummy. As long as those measured forces are below a head injury
criterion (HIC) of 1,000, the dummy's head may travel any distance and
may impact any object in the test environment (those objects would be
``soft,'' i.e., padded, for the HIC to be less than 1,000). A head
excursion limit is undesirable because it would restrict travel of the
head even when a HIC measurement resulting from excursion over the
limit shows that the excursion would not result in harm.
Petitioner argued that NHTSA should test built-in restraints
without the surrounding features of the vehicle interior because its
restraints can be installed in innumerable vehicles with different
interiors. NHTSA believes testing in the specific vehicle shell is
needed because of this variation in the design of vehicle interiors.
Built-in restraints can be installed by the manufacturer anywhere in
the vehicle, e.g., the front seat, or middle row of seats in vans, or
rear seat. Seat location can vary significantly, and so too can the
features of the vehicle interior surrounding a built-in restraint,
including features such as roof pillars, consoles or other hard
structures. To assure that a restrained child does not hit structures
in the vehicle interior, NHTSA must test the built-in restraint with
the surroundings of the vehicle interior that a child can impact in a
crash.
However, the built-in restraint manufacturer has control over which
vehicle interiors will surround its restraints. Standard 213 requires
built-in restraint manufacturers to specify in installation
instructions accompanying the restraints which types of vehicles and
seating positions the restraint can or cannot be installed. (S5.6.3,
adopted by the April 1993 final rule.) By limiting the vehicle models
and seating locations in which the restraint is to be installed, the
manufacturer can manage its certification responsibilities. The
manufacturer would be responsible for the compliance of its restraints
with respect to the specified vehicles and positions.
The NPRM preceding the April 1993 final rule explained the
significance of a built-in restraint manufacturer's specifying the
vehicle models and seating positions that are suitable for its
restraints. Such specification has important implications and
advantages for manufacturers of built-in restraints that do not also
manufacture the vehicle in which the restraint is installed. The NPRM
stated:
The instructions would establish the assumptions that the
[built-in restraint] manufacturer had about the vehicle interior
that form the basis for the [restraint's] certification. The
instructions specify attributes about the vehicle interior that are
compatible or incompatible with the restraint. For example, the
instructions could state that the restraint must not be installed
within a specified distance from any rigid interior structures. The
instructions would help ensure that a built-in restraint performs as
intended in the real world.
NHTSA also believes that the installation instructions would
help facilitate compliance testing. If the instructions were
specific as to the vehicle types suitable for the restraint, the
agency could determine the configuration of the ``specific vehicle
shell or the specific vehicle'' (S6.1.1.1(a)) for testing the
restraint. The agency would install the restraint pursuant to the
manufacturer's instructions. The restraint's performance in the test
would be representative of its performance in the vehicle. 57 FR
870, 872 (January 9, 1992).
In other words, built-in restraint manufacturers are responsible
for the compliance of their systems in vehicles and seating positions
in which they anticipate that their restraints will be installed. They
can control where the restraints are installed by specifying limits in
the installation instructions accompanying the restraint. (These
instructions are typically provided to professionals, not the public,
because installing a built-in restraint into the vehicle as a permanent
structure requires more technical ability than that of the average
consumer.) The built-in restraint manufacturer can avoid a
noncompliance resulting from use of its restraint in a particular
vehicle or seating position by identifying those vehicles and seating
positions that are appropriate for its restraint.
Hassel Free said it was economically unfeasible to test its
restraint with each van interior to assess the ability of the restraint
to comply with Standard 213. Testing the restraint with the interior of
each van, regardless of limitations in the manufacturer's instructions,
is not required by NHTSA. Further, it is not even necessary to test the
restraint in each model of van which the manufacturer specifies as
being suitable for the restraint.
A manufacturer that tests its restraint for certification purposes
could limit its testing by deciding to test only a ``worst case''
scenario, i.e., testing under the most austere or unfavorable
conditions and circumstances specified in the standard. Relying on
worst case testing as a basis for a manufacturer's certification is
commonplace among manufacturers. For example, Standard 208, ``Occupant
Crash Protection,'' requires injury criteria to be met with the test
vehicle traveling forward at any speed ``up to and including 30 mph''
into a fixed barrier ``that is perpendicular to the line of travel of
the vehicle, or at any angle up to 30 degrees in either direction from
the perpendicular'' (S5.1). Manufacturers typically test a vehicle at
30 mph into a perpendicular barrier since that is the worst case test.
The manufacturers believe that if the vehicle passes that worst case
test, it is reasonable to conclude it will pass less severe tests
(e.g., at lower speeds into angled barriers). Some elements that should
be considered in selecting a worst case test for a built-in restraint
manufacturer would be the interior dimensions of the vehicle into which
the built-in seat is installed, the characteristics of the vehicle seat
into which the seat is fabricated, the attachment of the vehicle seat
to the vehicle, the integrity of the restraint's belt system, and the
proximity of structures that could be impacted by the dummy's head in a
crash. Incorporating these elements into the test assembly is not cost
significant. Hassel Free could test its restraint on the modified test
assembly only for the worst case scenario and without undue economic
burden.
Hassel Free argued that van converters will not want to install the
petitioner's built-in child restraint in a vehicle when they are faced
with the responsibility to certify the vehicle to Standard 213. NHTSA
believes that any decision not to install a built-in child seat will
stem from reasons other than the certification responsibility. NHTSA's
certification regulations (49 CFR part 567) require van converters to
ensure that the alteration they make to a previously-certified vehicle,
or the work done to finish an unfinished vehicle, is in conformance
with all applicable FMVSS's. Any device covered by an FMVSS that is
installed on a new vehicle must be certified as complying with that
standard. A van converter that installs any seat (with or without a
built-in child seat) in the van, or any item of glazing, or any
lighting equipment or brake hose or safety belt, must certify the
compliance, and thus the safety of, that item and installation.
Van converters can certify the compliance of a built-in seat
without conducting a vehicle or shell test. The compliance test
procedures described in the FMVSS's prescribe the procedures that the
agency must use to test a vehicle or item of equipment for compliance
with the standard. Manufacturers are not required to use those
procedures. In the case of Standard 213, they may certify the
compliance of their vehicles or child restraints to Standard 213 using
any information they choose.2 Hassel Free's vehicle converter has
the option of deciding it is reasonable to depend on the assurances of
Hassel Free that the built-in child seat will meet Standard 213 (e.g.,
based on worst case testing) in making its certification. In addition
to Hassel Free's worst case testing, the vehicle converter has the
option of satisfying its certification responsibilities by conducting a
vehicle or shell test, or performing engineering analyses such as
computer simulations of the item's performance in a particular vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\If the manufacturer's product fails NHTSA's compliance test,
the manufacturer must show the basis for its certification. If a
manufacturer did not exercise due care in certifying its products,
it will be subject to civil penalties in addition to the recall
responsibilities associated with all noncompliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In deciding whether and the degree to which to test, the vehicle
converter determines the validity and merits of the supplier's
assurances. This process of weighing the validity of the supplier's
assurances is the same whether it is a built-in child seat that the
converter is installing, or any other supplied item of equipment (e.g.,
vehicle seat, safety belt, glazing or lighting equipment). Petitioner's
claims that van converters will not install built-in child restraints
in their vehicles because of the requirement to certify to Standard
213's dynamic requirements are unpersuasive.
For the reasons provided above, the agency is denying Hassel
Free's petition.
Issued on May 23, 1994.
Barry Felrice
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-12960 Filed 5-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P