Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

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