Consumer Information Regulations; Seat Belt Positioners

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. 99-5100]

RIN 2127-AG49

Consumer Information Regulations; Seat Belt Positioners

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Grant of petition for rulemaking; notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend our consumer information

regulations to require seat belt positioners to be labeled as not

suitable for children of a certain age, e.g., under 6 years old, or a

certain height. Seat belt positioners alter the positioning of vehicle

lap and shoulder belts on children. We found in tests of some of the

devices that they inadequately restrained a 3-year-old child dummy and

reduced the performance of vehicle belts restraining a 6-year-old child

dummy. We are also requesting information on the alternative of

establishing a minimum performance standard for seat belt positioners.

We have issued this document in response to a petition for rulemaking

from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that

Docket Management receives them not later than October 12, 1999.

ADDRESSES: You should mention the docket number of this document in

your comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket

Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20590.

You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the

Docket from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For non-legal issues, you may call Mike Huntley of the NHTSA Office

of Crashworthiness Standards, at 202-366-0029.

For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita of the NHTSA Office

of Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.

You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC,

20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

This document grants a petition for rulemaking from the American

Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) requesting that NHTSA amend Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems'' (49 CFR

571.213) (Standard 213), to include performance requirements applicable

to aftermarket, add-on seat belt positioners. These devices alter the

positioning of vehicle lap and shoulder belts. The statements on the

packaging for some of these devices indicate that they are suitable for

improving the fit of the belts on children, which in some cases

includes 3- to 6-year-olds, and small adults.

The agency dynamically tested three types of belt positioning

devices in 1994, using 3-year-old and 6-year-old dummies. We tested the

dummies by restraining them in lap/shoulder belts

[[Page 44165]]

with, and without, the devices. When we compared the results, we found

that in many of the tests with the 3-year-old dummy, the positioners

reduced belt performance and contributed toward excessive head injury

criterion (HIC) measurements (HICs were greater than 1000). The devices

generally performed adequately with the 6-year-old dummy, in that the

performance criteria of our child restraint standard were not exceeded,

although there was some reduction in the performance of the vehicle

belt system restraining the dummy.

In this document, we propose to amend our consumer information

regulations (49 CFR Part 575) to require seat belt positioners to be

labeled as not suitable for children of a certain age, e.g., 6 years,

and younger. We also request information on the alternative, or

additional, approach of establishing a minimum performance standard for

seat belt positioners. Further, we also seek information on whether

there is a real-world safety problem of sufficient magnitude to merit

the agency's taking action.

Petition for Rulemaking

On January 31, 1996, AAP petitioned NHTSA to amend Standard 213,

``Child Restraint Systems,'' to regulate aftermarket seat belt

positioners. Aftermarket seat belt positioners, which are designed to

improve the fit of the lap and shoulder belt system on a child or small

adult, are not currently subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety

standard. Standard 213 applies to ``any device except Type I or Type II

seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to

restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less.''

(S4) A seat belt positioner that does not restrain, seat or position

children is not a device regulated by Standard 213. Safety Standard No.

208, ``Occupant Crash Protection'' (49 CFR 571.208) and Standard 210

(571.210), ``Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages,'' apply to new, completed

vehicles. Standard 209 (571.209), ``Seat Belt Assemblies,'' applies to

new seat belt assemblies. Because an aftermarket seat belt positioner

is not installed as part of a completed vehicle or a seat belt

assembly, Standards 208, 209 and 210 do not apply.1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ While seat belt positioners are not subject to the

standards, they are items of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly,

their manufacturers are subject to the requirements in 49 U.S.C.

30119 and 30120 concerning the recall and remedy of products with

safety related defects.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AAP states that, because seat belt positioners are generally

marketed as child occupant protection devices, the products should be

subject to the same scrutiny and testing that child restraint systems

undergo. AAP's concern is that some seat belt positioners ``appear to

interfere with proper lap and shoulder harness fit by positioning the

lap belt too high on the abdomen, the shoulder harness too low across

the shoulder, and by allowing too much slack in the shoulder harness.''

Accordingly, AAP believes that the devices should be subject to a

safety standard so that they are required to meet a minimum level of

performance. AAP believes that this would be especially appropriate

because, AAP contends, some parents decide to have their older children

sit directly on the vehicle seat and use a combination of vehicle seat

belts and seat belt positioners instead of having those children sit in

booster seats certified to Standard 213. (As explained below, NHTSA

recommends that children weighing over 40 pounds (lb) be restrained in

a booster seat until they are tall enough so that they can, without the

aid of a booster seat: (1) Wear the shoulder belt comfortably across

their shoulder, and secure the lap belt across their pelvis, and (2)

bend their legs over the front of the seat when their backs are against

the vehicle seat back.)

NHTSA's Previous Consideration of Seat Belt Positioners

We previously raised the question of whether seat belt positioners

should be regulated by Standard 213 several years ago. In a rulemaking

proceeding initiated in response to the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991

(sections 2500-2509 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

Act), we issued an NPRM seeking comment on, among other issues, the

question of whether the standard should be applied to those devices,

and if so, what requirements would be appropriate. We later issued a

final rule amending Standard 213 in areas unrelated to seat belt

positioners, but in that rule we discussed the public comments on this

issue and announced our decision (60 FR 35126; July 6, 1995) not to

propose applying the standard to these devices:

Six commenters responded to this issue. All believed the devices

need to be subjected to safety standards to ensure that they provide

occupants with proper safety protection. UM-CPP [University of

Michigan Child Protection Program] stated that the primary problem

with these devices is that there are ``no formal test procedures and

criteria for determining whether a given deflector is effective and/

or better than nothing for certain vehicle belt/occupant

combinations.'' IIHS [Insurance Institute for Highway Safety]

strongly urged that these restraint devices to improve belt fit, be

subject to Standard 213, as are booster seats. It said these devices

are targeted to those children who have outgrown toddler seats but

are too small to be appropriately restrained by adult seatbelts.

Redlog, a manufacturer of belt adjustment devices, recommended that

these devices be included in the definition of child restraints in

FMVSS No. 213. Redlog recommended creating a sub-category within the

existing definition of child restraints to accommodate these

devices. It concluded by saying that dynamic crash testing and

labeling for appropriate usage are essential requirements. Advocates

[Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety] expressed its concern with

the safety of these devices and said the agency has an obligation to

test them to determine if they interfere with the safety performance

of the restraint system. Safety BeltSafe said that ``standards are

essential for the new category of product which purports to

reconfigure the shoulder lap belt to respond to the differing seated

heights of passengers and drivers in vehicles.'' It, however, said

at this time, it does not recommend use of such products if the

passenger is able to use a belt-positioning booster. CompUTence said

that FMVSS 213 should address all child and small adult safety

devices relating to occupant restraint and that, currently, these

devices are sold without knowledge of whether they provide the

safety claimed by their manufacturers.

While commenters supported regulating the aftermarket devices,

the agency is not prepared to undertake rulemaking at this time.

NHTSA needs to better assess the safety benefits of such rulemaking,

and the feasibility of a test procedure and practicability of

performance requirements. (60 FR at 35137)

Agency Review of Petition

In reviewing AAP's petition, we were guided by a number of

considerations. First, we believe that children's crash protection will

be maximized if parents follow the recommendations we developed on what

type of restraint should be used for children of particular sizes. One

question for us was whether the positioners themselves, or the

statements in their marketing and packaging, might encourage parents to

use child restraints in a manner inconsistent with those

recommendations. Second, we believe that use of belt positioners must

not degrade the safety of children whose child restraint usage is

consistent with the recommendations.

NHTSA Recommendations Regarding Child Restraint Usage

Our usage recommendations, which were published in November 1997 as

part of an information brochure concerning on-off switches for air

bags, are as follows:

[[Page 44166]]

What Restraint Is Right For Your Child?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proper type of restraint (Put

Weight or size of your child your child in back seat, if

possible)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Children less than 20 pounds,* or less Rear-facing infant seat

than 1 year. (secured to the vehicle by

the seat belts).

Children from about 20 to 40 pounds* and Forward-facing child seat

at least 1 year. (secured to the vehicle by

the seat belts).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Children more than 40 pounds*........... Booster seat, plus both

portions of a lap/shoulder

belt (except only the lap

portion is used with some

booster seats equipped with

front shield).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Children who meet both criteria below: Both portions of a lap/

shoulder belt.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Their sitting height is high

enough so that they can, without

the aid of a booster seat:

wear the shoulder belt

comfortably across their

shoulder, and secure the lap

belt across their pelvis, and

(2) Their legs are long enough to

bend over the front of the seat

when their backs are against the

vehicle seat back.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* To determine whether a particular restraint is appropriate for your

child, see restraint manufacturer's recommendations concerning the

weight of children who may safely use the restraint.

We believe that it is important that seat belt positioners and

other child passenger devices, and the statements in their marketing

and packaging, not induce parents and other care givers to restrain

children in a way that may be appropriate for a larger child, but not

for that child. For example, children who cannot meet the sitting

height and leg length criteria in the agency's recommendations should

not be placed directly on a vehicle seat, restrained by the vehicle

seat belts.

We believe that if seat belt positioners are marketed for children

under 6 years old, they can induce people to act contrary to this

advice. The 50th percentile 3-year-old male child weighs 33 lb. Under

our recommendations, a 3-year-old child should be restrained by a

forward-facing child restraint (a convertible or toddler seat) rather

than by the vehicle's seat belts. When the child outgrows a forward-

facing convertible or toddler seat, he or she should use a child

booster seat, which lifts and positions the child to fit a vehicle's

belt system. The booster seat should be used until the child is tall

enough to wear the vehicle's lap and shoulder belts properly without an

accessory, and can sit comfortably on the vehicle seat with knees bent

over the front of the seat when the child's back is against the vehicle

seat back.

We note that it is uncertain whether seat belt positioners are now

generally marketed for use with 3-year-old children. We believe that

the positioners are usually advertised in both their promotional

materials and in statements on their packaging as being suitable for

children who weigh 50 lb or more, which is approximately the weight of

the 50th percentile 6-year-old male (48 lb). A positioner that, several

years ago, had been advertised in packaging as suitable for use by

children as young as 3 years old, 2 no longer is so

recommended. Now, it is instead marketed as suitable for children

weighing over 50 lb. Further, it is uncertain whether or to what extent

seat belt positioners are being used with children 3- to 6-years old.

State child restraint use laws requiring the use of child safety seats

would indirectly prohibit use of a positioner alone in combination with

vehicle seat belts (with no child safety seat), for restraining very

young children (e.g., under the age of 4).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ This positioner, the Child-Safer, was included in NHTSA's

test program, infra, and tested with the 3-year-old dummy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's Dynamic Testing of Seat Belt Positioners

Following the issuance of the July 1995 rule, NHTSA published a

report on an evaluation by our Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC)

of three types of seat belt positioners. ``Evaluation of Devices to

Improve Shoulder Belt Fit,'' DOT HS 808 383, Sullivan and Chambers,

August 1994.3 The three devices were the ChildSafer, a

plastic strip that attaches to the lap belt and that has three

different openings through which the shoulder belt can be routed; the

SafeFit, a pouch design through which the lap/shoulder belt is routed;

and the Seatbelt Adjuster, a plastic clip that attaches to the lap

belt, which has a flange through which the shoulder belt is rerouted.

The ChildSafer was then recommended for occupants between the heights

of 38 inches (the standing height of the average 3-year-old male child)

to 60 inches. VRTC conducted a series of 35 sled tests using a dynamic

test procedure to evaluate seat belt positioners using the standard

frontal condition specified in Standard 213 4, as well as

modified conditions to simulate oblique (15 degree offset) impacts.

VRTC used test dummies representing a 3-year-old and 6-year-old child,

and a 5th percentile adult female. In the test representing a 15 degree

offset impact, the test seat assembly was placed in two different

positions, rotated clockwise (occupant faces toward shoulder portion of

seat belt) and rotated counterclockwise (occupant faces away from

shoulder portion of seat belt).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ While the study was conducted in 1994, preparation of the

report for publication was not completed until 1995. The report is

available from the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, VA 22161.

\4\ Standard 213's dynamic test uses a standard vehicle seat

assembly to which a child restraint system is attached by means of a

vehicle seat belt. The seat assembly, along with the child restraint

system, is subjected to a frontal 30 mph change of velocity over a

duration of about 80 milliseconds.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VRTC found that injury criteria measurements were generally higher

when a seat belt positioner was used in restraining the 3-year-old

dummy than when the child dummy was restrained without a belt

positioner. (The latter case is referred to as the ``baseline''

configuration. In the baseline tests conducted using the 3-year-old

dummy, the dummy was positioned such that the shoulder belt was

positioned across the shoulder and away from the neck area as best as

possible.) When tested in the baseline configuration, i.e., with no

positioner, the HIC values were less than 1000 for all tests. (However,

the HIC value for the three-year-old dummy

[[Page 44167]]

in the baseline/clockwise orientation was marginal at 995.) When tested

with the positioners, HIC levels, for the most part, exceeded the 1000

HIC limit of Standard 213.

In all of the tests (with and without seat belt positioners) with

the 3-year-old dummy, the dummy's head hit his forearms. In some tests,

these head impacts were more severe than in others. In some tests with

a seat belt positioner, the forehead would hit one forearm and then

bounce to the other forearm. These contacts contributed to the increase

of the HIC measurements. However, although removing the effect of the

head contact reduced the HIC values by about 6 percent, the HIC values

were still above the Standard 213 criterion of 1000.

In other tests with a seat belt positioner, the shoulder belt

portion of the lap/shoulder belt slipped off the shoulder, allowing the

3-year-old dummy to slip around the belt. In tests of the 3-year-old

dummy in the frontal crash configuration with a seat belt positioner,

the increased chest g's and head and knee excursions were still within

the limits of the standard. One positioner lowered chest g measurements

in the frontal and 15 degree offset crash configurations.

In tests with the 6-year-old dummy, when using a seat belt

positioner, the dummy tended to ``roll-out'' of the seat belt

positioner and around the shoulder belt. The HIC, chest g's, and head

and knee excursions increased in some cases but were generally within

the limits for all the tests (with and without seat belt positioners),

except one of the seat belt positioners had chest g measurements

exceeding the limit of Standard 213 in the frontal and 15 degree offset

clockwise tests. That device introduced slack in the shoulder belt

during the test. In some of the tests, the positioners resulted in

injury criteria values that were lower than or approximately the same

as those obtained in the baseline tests.

The complete test results are set forth in Tables 1 and 2 below.

Those results should be compared to the requirements of Standard 213,

which specifies testing in the frontal crash condition and limits HIC

to 1000; chest acceleration to 60 g's; head excursion to 813 mm; and

knee excursion to 915 mm.

Table 1.--Injury Criteria and Excursion for 3-Year-Old Dummy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Head Knee

Fit device HIC Chest clip excursion excursion

(g) (mm) (mm)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limits of Standard 213 1000 60 813 915

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-Year-Old.......................... Baseline (No Device).. 874 48.7 477 553

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frontal............................. Child Safer........... 1309 55.1 560 615

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SafeFit............... 1095 56.5 496 618

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seatbelt adjuster..... 999 48.1 551 583

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-Year-Old.......................... Baseline (No Device).. 995 48.5 411 535

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 deg. Offset Clock-wise........... Child Safer........... 1565 52.3 564 665

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SafeFit............... 1435 62.1 486 639

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seatbelt adjuster..... 1238 45.4 452 580

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2.--Injury Criteria and Excursion for 6-Year-Old Dummy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Head Knee

Fit device HIC Chest clip excursion excursion

(g) (mm) (mm)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limits of Standard 213 1000 60 813 915

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6-Year-Old.......................... Baseline (No Device).. 657 50.4 481 628

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frontal............................. Child Safer........... 769 65.2 567 674

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SafeFit............... 427 49.1 566 649

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seatbelt adjuster..... 634 50.8 473 604

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6-Year-Old.......................... Baseline (No Device).. 595 54.3 435 602

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 deg. Offset Clockwise............ Child Safer........... 947 67.1 540 661

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SafeFit............... 621 57.7 461 580

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seatbelt adjuster..... 794 55.1 493 640

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6-Year-Old.......................... Baseline (No Device).. 409 48.5 516 607

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 deg. Offset Counter-clockwise.... Child Safer........... 509 50.1 628 605

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SafeFit............... 386 42.8 577 589

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seatbelt adjuster..... 374 45.7 554 559

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 44168]]

Agency Decision Regarding AAP's Petition

NHTSA is granting AAP's petition and is proposing to amend our

labeling regulation to require seat belt positioners to be labeled with

a warning against using the devices with children under the age of

6.5 We also request comment on whether the requirements

proposed in this NPRM should also apply to seat belt positioners

installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle, in addition to seat

belt positioners sold directly to consumers in the ``aftermarket.'' We

are also asking for information on other possible courses of action we

could take with regard to the devices.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ In November 1998, NHTSA Administrator Ricardo Martinez,

M.D., formed a ``Blue Ribbon Panel,'' consisting of representatives

from the auto and child restraint safety communities, to examine

ways to ensure the proper protection of children ages 5 to 16 in

motor vehicles. On March 15, 1999, the panel released a set of

recommendations, including a number in the areas of product design

and research that directly address the issue of seat belt

positioning devices. NHTSA will consider the recommendations of the

panel in conjunction with those comments received in response to

this notice in determining the appropriate course of action

regarding the regulation of belt positioning devices.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue 1: Is There a Safety Need for This Rulemaking Action?

A real-world safety problem has not been quantified thus far. There

are no complaints in our crash files concerning seat belt positioners.

AAP did not submit any information indicating that positioners are

actually causing or exacerbating injuries.

The VRTC study found that there could be a potential safety

problem. The study found that three types of positioners generally

degraded the performance of the lap/shoulder belt system when tested

with the 3-year-old dummy, by increasing the head and chest injury

criteria measurements, and head and knee excursion measurements, over

the measurements made in the baseline tests. One positioner slightly

decreased chest clip values measured in the frontal and 15 degree

offset tests. HIC levels for the positioners were at or exceeded the

1000 HIC limit of Standard 213 in all tests. When tested with the 6-

year-old dummy, the positioners generally performed adequately, by

keeping the injury criteria measurements within the limits of the

standard. In some of the tests, the positioners resulted in injury

criteria values that were lower than or approximately the same as those

obtained in the baseline tests.

However, although HIC values generally exceeded the limit of

Standard 213 in tests with the 3-year-old dummy, seat belt positioners

might not be typically used with 3-year-old children. As noted above,

the devices are typically marketed (in advertising literature and on

packaging) for children who weigh 50 lb or more, which is approximately

the weight of the 50th percentile 6-year-old male (48 lb). In view of

the current marketing of seat belt positioners for use by children

weighing 50 lb or more, we request comments on whether regulating the

devices is warranted.

While the VRTC study compared the performance of the various seat

belt positioners to a baseline configuration of the test dummy

restrained without the positioner (i.e., positioned directly on the

test seat and restrained by a lap/shoulder belt), we also compared the

performance of the seat belt positioners (as measured in the VRTC

study) to Standard 213 compliance test results of convertible child

restraints and belt-positioning seats. We compared the VRTC test

results of the seat belt positioning devices to compliance tests that

were conducted by the agency between 1993 and 1998, using the 3-year-

old dummy in convertible child restraints and the 6-year-old dummy in

belt-positioning booster seats. The average HIC value in 363 compliance

tests conducted on convertible child restraints using the 3-year-old

dummy is 483.6, as compared to an average HIC of 1,134.3 for the three

seat belt positioners tested (using the frontal crash scenario results

only). This is a 57.3 percent reduction of HIC values when using the

convertible-type child restraint. Test results also indicate that chest

acceleration values are reduced to an average of 46.9 g's in the 363

compliance tests using the 3-year-old dummy in a convertible child

restraint, from an average of 53.2 g's using the seat belt positioning

devices.

The average head and knee excursion in the compliance tests of the

convertible seats was found to be 28.9 inches and 32.5 inches,

respectively. These values are somewhat greater than the 21.1 inches

and 23.8 inches for head and knee excursion found for the belt

positioning devices during the VRTC study, but still well within the

limits of 32 inches and 36 inches prescribed in Standard 213. It should

also be noted that beginning in September of this year, child

restraints will be required to meet more stringent requirements with

respect to the allowable head excursion in dynamic testing. Convertible

child restraints manufactured on or after September 1, 1999 will be

required to limit head excursion of the test dummy to a maximum of 28

inches (the restraints may incorporate a tether to meet this

requirement).

The average values for each of the injury criteria measured with

the 6-year-old dummy in compliance tests of belt-positioning booster

seats are below those measured using the seat belt positioning devices

in the VRTC study. HIC values in 17 compliance tests of belt-

positioning booster seats using the 6-year-old dummy have averaged 464,

as compared to 610 for the seat belt positioning devices in the VRTC

study, and chest acceleration values have averaged 48.8 g's for belt-

positioning booster seats, as compared to 55 g's for the seat belt

positioning devices. Head and knee excursion are also reduced by an

average of 1 inch each when using a belt-positioning seat.

The data above indicate that children are typically afforded

greater levels of protection when using convertible-type and belt-

positioning booster seats than when using the seat belt positioning

devices tested in the VRTC study. These data indicate that a 3-year-old

child should not be restrained using a seat belt positioning device.

Children of this age should typically be restrained in a convertible-

type child restraint, which often offers a 5-point harness for added

protection in the event of a crash. Further, the data show that a 6-

year-old child restrained in a belt-positioning booster seat is

provided a greater level of safety protection than when using a seat

belt positioning device.

Issue 2: Should We Require a Warning Label for the Devices?

Our tests of seat belt positioners indicate that they generally

performed adequately with the 6-year-old dummy, but did not do so in

tests with 3-year-old dummy. (The devices increased the latter dummy's

HIC values to unacceptable levels.) In view of this, we are proposing

to require that the devices be labeled with a warning that they must

not be used with children under a certain age, e.g., 6 years.

Alternatively, a child's height might be a better predictor of whether

a positioner would perform adequately than a child's age. Thus, we also

are requesting comments on whether the label should include a warning

against using the devices with children under a certain height, e.g.,

the height of a 50th percentile 6-year-old male (47.5 inches, or 1206

mm), as an alternative or in addition to the warning referencing the

child's age.

We are proposing that seat belt positioners be labeled with

information that would maximize the correct positioning of the belts on

the child. The lap and shoulder belt needs to be positioned so as to

maximize the

[[Page 44169]]

distribution of the crash forces to the child's skeletal structure. The

lap belt and the shoulder belt should not be positioned such that they

would increase the loading of the soft tissues and organs of the

child's abdomen. The shoulder belt should not be aligned so that the

child might twist toward the middle of the vehicle in a crash, or

adjusted with excessive slack in the belt. We thus propose that seat

belt positioners be labeled with the statement: ``Make sure that this

device positions the lap belt low across the child's hips and not on

the stomach. The shoulder belt must be snug and on the child's

shoulder, not near the neck or off the shoulder.'' Comments are

requested on this issue.

The regulatory text provided in this NPRM proposes a permanent

label that includes the information, noted above, as to how the lap and

shoulder belt should be properly fitted, and information as to the

model name or number of the system, the manufacturer's name, and the

place of manufacture. The latter information would be required to

assist in identifying the equipment for purposes of a finding of a

safety defect or a recall. Is there enough room on these devices for a

permanent label which incorporates all of this information in a

readable size? If not, are there alternative means to convey the same

information, e.g., a permanent label warning ``Do not use for children

under 6'' on the device, in conjunction with a requirement that the

remaining information be provided with the packaging material?

Issue 3: Should the Devices Be Regulated by Standard 213?

The agency tentatively believes that it would not be appropriate

for seat belt positioners to be regulated by Standard 213. Standard 213

does not apply to devices recommended for children weighing over 50 lb,

which, NHTSA believes, is the recommended weight range for the users of

most, if not all, positioners. Further, even if the current

requirements of Standard 213 were extended to such devices, there is

some question of whether those requirements could effectively assess

belt positioners.

If the current test procedure and injury criteria of Standard 213

were used to test and evaluate the devices, it appears that belt

positioners would generally pass Standard 213 when tested in accordance

with the standard, i.e., with the 6-year-old dummy. This conformance

would leave unaddressed and even obscure the question of whether the

standard would be able to distinguish between acceptable and

unacceptable performance of belt positioners. Belt positioning devices

can cause the lap belt to rise above the hips in a crash and press into

the soft abdominal area instead of staying lower and lying across the

child's hips, thereby increasing the potential for abdominal injury.

Currently there are no abdominal sensors on the child dummies used by

NHTSA in compliance testing, or injury criteria developed, and thus no

way to evaluate the potential for abdominal injury using the existing

test protocols of Standard 213.6

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Similarly, belt positioning devices increased neck load and

moments in the VRTC tests when used with the 5th percentile female

dummy compared to baseline conditions (no device). No neck injury

assessment was performed using child dummies because child dummies

equipped with a neck load cell were not available at the time that

the VRTC test program was conducted. On September 18, 1998, NHTSA

proposed to amend Standard 208 to require the use of new 12-month-,

3-year-, and 6-year-old dummies that are instrumented with load

cells to measure neck forces and moments when evaluating air bags in

frontal crashes (63 FR 49957). The proposal also included neck

injury criteria. If a procedure and criteria are adopted, seat belt

positioners and other child safety devices may be evaluated for

potential child neck injury.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Standard 213 were applied to belt positioners, some consumers

might erroneously conclude that a belt positioner certified to the

Federal standard would provide the same level of protection as a child

restraint system. Some parents might respond to the certification of

belt positioners by prematurely moving their child out of a child

safety seat into the vehicle seat belt system, believing that the

``certified'' belt positioner renders the vehicle belt system adequate

for the child. The premature ``graduation'' of a child to the vehicle

belt system would be contrary to NHTSA's recommendations on restraining

children and could degrade the child's crash protection.

NHTSA believes that children who cannot properly wear the vehicle

shoulder belt without a positioning device should still be using a

child restraint system, such as a toddler seat or a belt-positioning

booster, rather than the vehicle belt system. A toddler seat provides a

high back for neck support and typically has side supports that cushion

and protect the child in frontal and side impacts. Seat belt

positioners do not provide such protection. In addition, toddler seats

have an internal restraint system (a harness system which may include a

shield or shelf) which fits the child better than vehicle belts and

which does not allow direct contact of a vehicle lap belt with the

child. Thus, the child restraint diverts and distributes dynamic crash

forces away from vulnerable parts of the child's body. Further, a

toddler or booster seat is more comfortable for children whose legs are

too short to allow them to bend their knees when sitting upright

against the vehicle seat back. These children will slouch down when

seated directly on the vehicle seat cushion, so as to bend their knees,

and in doing so are likely to reposition the vehicle's lap belt over

the soft abdominal area.7 The more comfortable fit of the

child restraint system's platform seat therefore results in a safer fit

of the lap restraint, compared to the fit of the lap belt on a child

sitting directly on the vehicle cushion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ ``Study of Older Child Restraint/Booster Seat Fit and NASS

Injury Analysis,'' Klinich, Pritz, Welty, et al., DOT HS 808 248,

November 1994.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Older children who can fit in a belt-positioning booster seat would

be safer in such seats than seated on a vehicle seat using the vehicle

seat belts and a seat belt positioning device of the types discussed in

this document. The main object of belt positioning devices is to adjust

the shoulder belt portion of a Type II (lap and shoulder) belt so as

not to cross the child's face or neck. Booster seats achieve this

objective by raising the child in relation to the belts--rather than

vice versa, as with belt positioning devices--and thereby make it less

likely, than when using a positioning device, that the lap belt would

be positioned over the child's abdomen. Boosters provide a seating

platform that enable children to bend their knees without slouching,

which may occur when the child is seated directly on the vehicle seat.

As noted in the previous paragraph, slouching can result in the

repositioning of a lap belt over the child's soft abdominal area.

Booster seats also hold the child more securely and reduce the

likelihood that excessive slack will be introduced into the belt

system. Again, however, these differences would be obscured by the fact

that both the seat belt positioner and the booster seat would be

certified as complying with ``all applicable Federal motor vehicle

safety standards.'' Thus, consumers might mistakenly assume that both

offer comparable levels of protection when they would not.

To avoid this misunderstanding, NHTSA tentatively believes seat

belt positioners should not be considered as the same type of device as

a child restraint system, or regulated by Standard 213. Comments are

requested on this issue. (We also note, however, that use of booster

seats for children weighing more than 40 pounds has been

[[Page 44170]]

documented to be very low. The availability of belt positioning devices

may encourage some people to use the shoulder portion of a lap/shoulder

belt who otherwise would put the shoulder belt behind their back due to

physical discomfort. Putting the shoulder belt behind the back

dramatically decreases restraint effectiveness.)

Issue 4: Should the Devices Be Subject to Performance Requirements? If

Yes, What Requirements Would Be Appropriate?

Despite the tentative conclusion above, comments are requested

regarding a performance requirement, in lieu of or in addition to, a

labeling requirement. Comments are requested on the feasibility of

developing a practical procedure to dynamically test the performance of

these devices when used alone with the vehicle's belt system, and also

in conjunction with a child restraint system. If commenters are

supportive of performance requirements for seat belt positioners, NHTSA

requests that they provide methods by which to assess the injury

potential for areas of identified concern, such as abdominal and neck

loading. As noted above in this document, NHTSA issued a September 18,

1998 proposal to amend Standard 208, to require the use of new child

dummies that are instrumented with load cells to measure neck forces

and moments when evaluating air bags in frontal crashes. The proposal

included neck injury criteria. Comments are requested on the

appropriateness of using the proposed procedure and criteria for

evaluating neck injury potential using various child dummies restrained

in seat belt positioners.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures

This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,

``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The agency has considered the

impact of this rulemaking action under the Department of

Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures, and has determined

that it is not ``significant'' under them. NHTSA has prepared a

preliminary regulatory evaluation (PRE) for this document which

discusses issues relating to the potential costs, benefits and other

impacts of this regulatory action. The PRE is available in Docket No.

99-5100 and may be obtained by contacting Docket Management at the

address or telephone number provided at the beginning of this document.

You may also read the document via the Internet, by following the

instructions in the section below entitled, ``How can I read the

comments submitted by other people?'' The PRE will be listed in the

docket summary, along with the comments from other people.

The PRE notes that labeling positioners as proposed in this NPRM

could be beneficial in helping assure that young children are

restrained in the most appropriate manner for their size or age. This

would help prevent the degradation of safety benefits that occurs when

seat belts are not properly fitted across occupants' shoulders and

hips. However, we cannot currently quantify these benefits because no

data exist to determine the target population. The PRE estimates that

labeling costs resulting from the proposed labeling requirements of

this NPRM could be $0.05 to $0.08 for the manufacturer's cost,

depending on the type of label used, and between $0.12 and $0.19 per

positioner for the consumer. The cost to label the roughly 1.7 million

positioners sold annually is expected to be between $204,000 and

$323,000.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354), as

amended, requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their

proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and

small governmental jurisdictions. Section 603 of the Act requires

agencies to prepare and make available for public comment a preliminary

regulatory flexibility analysis (PRFA) describing the impact of

proposed rules on small entities. NHTSA has included a PRFA in the PRE

for this proposal.

Business entities are generally defined as small businesses by

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, for the purposes of

receiving Small Business Administration assistance. One of the criteria

for determining size, as stated in 13 CFR 121.601, is the number of

employees in the firm. To qualify as a small business in the Motor

Vehicle Parts and Accessories category (SIC 3714), the firm must have

fewer than 750 employees. The agency has considered the small business

impacts of this proposed rule based on this criterion.

The PRFA discusses the possible impacts of this action on small

businesses that manufacture belt positioning devices and requests

information that would assist NHTSA in further analyzing those impacts.

As noted above, possible labeling costs resulting from the labeling

provisions of this NPRM are estimated to be $0.05 to $0.08 for the

manufacturer's cost. Added consumer costs could be from $0.12 to $0.19.

The agency tentatively believes that the cost increase would not

significantly raise the price of seat belt positioners, and would not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and the

agency has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the

National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that

implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on

the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. A

petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceeding will

not be a prerequisite to an action seeking judicial review of this

rule. This proposed rule would not preempt the states from adopting

laws or regulations on the same subject, except that it would preempt a

state regulation that is in actual conflict with the Federal regulation

or makes compliance with the Federal regulation impossible or

interferes with the implementation of the Federal statute.

Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your

comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket

number of this document in your comments.

Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).

We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary

comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary

additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length

of the attachments.

Please submit two copies of your comments, including the

attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under

ADDRESSES.

[[Page 44171]]

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of

your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket

Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of

confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete

submission, including the information you claim to be confidential

business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should

submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential

business information, to Docket Management at the address given above

under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed

to be confidential business information, you should include a cover

letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential

business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives

before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated

above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider

comments that Docket Management receives after that date.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the

address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are

indicated above in the same location.

You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments

on the Internet, take the following steps:

(1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the

Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).

(2) On that page, click on ``search.''

(3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the

four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document.

Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1999-1234,'' you would type

``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''

(4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for

the docket you selected, click on the desired comments.

You may download the comments. However, since the comments are

imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded

comments are not word searchable.

Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will

continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes

available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,

we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 575

Consumer protection, Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

PART 575--[AMENDED] CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR

Part 575 as set forth below.

1. The authority citation for Part 575 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 575.4(a) would be revised to read as follows:

Subpart A--General

* * * * *

Sec. 575.4 Application

(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of

this section, each section set forth in subpart B of this part applies,

according to its terms, to motor vehicles, tires and items of motor

vehicle equipment manufactured after the effective date indicated.

* * * * *

3. Section 575.101 would be added to read as follows:

Sec. 575.101 Seat belt positioners

(a) Scope. This section requires manufacturers of seat belt

positioners to provide information about the correct use of the devices

and warn against the use of the devices with small children.

(b) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide purchasers

information related to the performance of seat belt positioners with

small children.

(c) Application. This section applies to seat belt positioners that

are not an integral part of a motor vehicle.

(d) Definitions. Seat belt positioner means a device, other than a

belt-positioning seat, that is manufactured to alter the positioning of

Type I and/or Type II belt systems in motor vehicles.

(e) Requirements. Each manufacturer of a seat belt positioner shall

permanently label the device with the following information:

(1) The model name or number of the system.

(2) The manufacturer's name, or a distributor's name, if the

distributor assumes responsibility for all duties and liabilities

imposed on the manufacturer with respect to the device by 49 U.S.C.

30101 et seq.

(3) The place of manufacture (city and State, or foreign country),

or the location (city and State, or foreign country) of the principal

offices of the distributor, if the distributor's name is used instead

of the manufacturer's name.

(4) A statement warning that the device must not be used with

children under the age of six [alternatively, or additionally, under

the height of 47.5 inches (1206 mm).]

(5) The statement: ``Make sure that this device positions the lap

belt low across the child's hips and not on the stomach. The shoulder

belt must be snug and on the child's shoulder, not near the neck or off

the shoulder.''

Issued on August 9, 1999.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 99-20950 Filed 8-11-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P