[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63651-63654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30233]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74-09; Notice 43]
RIN 2127-AF02


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration, delay of 
compliance date.

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

SUMMARY: This document delays until September 1, 1996, the date on 
which manufacturers of add-on (portable) child restraint systems must 
comply with a final rule that was published July 6, 1995 (60 FR 35126), 
and corrected September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50477). The rule amended 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child 
Restraint Systems,'' to add a greater array of sizes and weights of 
test dummies for use in compliance tests. Today's document responds to 
those requests in petitions for reconsideration of the rule relating to 
the compliance date. It provides needed leadtime to manufacturers of 
add-on (portable) child restraint systems to make necessary design 
changes to conform to the new requirements.
    The agency will respond to the remaining requests in the petitions 
for reconsideration in another document that will be published in the 
Federal Register in the near future.

DATES: The effective date (i.e., the date on which the text of the CFR 
is changed) of the final rule published July 6, 1995 (60 FR 35126) and 
corrected September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50477), remains January 3, 1996.
    For manufacturers of built-in child restraint systems, the 
compliance date for the amendments remains September 1, 1996.
    However, for manufacturers of add-on child restraint systems, the 
compliance date for the amendments made by those rules (i.e., the date 
on which these manufacturers must begin complying with the amendments) 
is changed to September 1, 1996.
    Petitions for reconsideration of the rule must be received by 
January 11, 1996.

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 
S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Dr. George 
Mouchahoir, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards (telephone 202-366-
4919).
    For legal issues: Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel 
(202-366-2992). Both can be reached at the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    This document delays until September 1, 1996, the date on which 
manufacturers of add-on (portable) child 

[[Page 63652]]
restraint systems must begin complying with the amendments made by a 
final rule that was published Thursday, July 6, 1995 (60 FR 35126), and 
corrected September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50477). The July 1995 final rule 
amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child 
Restraint Systems,'' by adding a greater array of sizes and weights of 
test dummies for use in compliance tests. The rule, which completed a 
substantial upgrade of the standard long envisioned by the agency, also 
responded to the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 (sections 2500-2509 of 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (``ISTEA'')). That 
Act directed NHTSA to initiate rulemaking on child seat safety. The 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the rule was published March 
16, 1994 (59 FR 12225).

Current Requirements

    Standard 213 applies to any device, except Type I (lap) or Type II 
(lap/shoulder) seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or 
aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children whose mass is 23 
kilograms (kg) (50 pounds) or less. The standard evaluates the 
performance of child restraint systems in dynamic tests under 
conditions simulating a frontal crash of an average automobile at 48 
kilometers per hour (kph) (30 miles per hour (mph)).
    The dynamic tests are conducted using a test dummy. Currently, 
Standard 213 (S7) specifies that a dummy representing a 6-month-old 
child be used for testing a child restraint system that is recommended 
by its manufacturer for use by children in a mass range that includes 
children whose mass is 9 kg or less (weighing 20 pounds or less). That 
dummy, which is not instrumented, is specified in subpart D of 49 CFR 
part 572. A dummy whose mass is 15 kg (weighing 33 pounds), 
representing a 3-year-old child, is used for testing a child restraint 
system that is recommended for children whose mass is 9 kg or more 
(weighing 20 or more pounds). This dummy is instrumented with 
accelerometers for measuring accelerations in the head and chest during 
impacts, and is specified in 49 CFR Part 572, subpart C.
    The requirements to be met by a child restraint in the dynamic 
testing include maintaining its structural integrity, retaining 
portions of the dummy within specified excursion limits (limits on how 
far specified portions of the body may move forward), and in the case 
of the 3-year-old dummy, limiting the forces exerted on the head and 
chest of the dummy in the crash. These requirements reduce the 
likelihood that the child using a child seat will be injured by the 
collapse or disintegration of the seat, by contact with the interior of 
the vehicle, or by imposition of intolerable forces by the seat.

July 1995 Final Rule

    The July 1995 final rule amended Standard 213 to add three dummies, 
representing a newborn infant, 9-month-old and 6-year-old child, for 
use in compliance testing under the standard. The rule removed the 6-
month-old child dummy currently used, since the need for it was 
eliminated by the addition of the new dummies.
    The additional dummies provide a better evaluation of the ability 
of child restraint systems to restrain and protect the range of 
children recommended for those systems. As a result of the rule, child 
restraints must meet the performance requirements of the standard while 
tested with dummies more representative of the range of children for 
whom the restraints are recommended. As a result, the performance of 
child restraints is more thoroughly evaluated. A dummy representing 
children at the lower end of the weight ranges recommended for a 
restraint evaluates the ability of the restraint to restrain its 
occupant. In other words, it evaluates the ability of a restraint to 
prevent a smaller child from slipping out of the restraint. A dummy at 
the higher end approximates the heaviest load that the restraint will 
have to bear in a crash and thus is particularly useful in evaluating 
the structural integrity of the restraint.
    The rule adopted the following provisions specifying which of the 
new dummies NHTSA will use in the compliance testing of child restraint 
systems:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If the range of children recommended by                                
    a child restraint's manufacturer         The following dummy(ies)   
 includes any children in the following   is(are) used in the compliance
                  range                      testing of that restraint  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birth--5 kg or less (Birth--11 lb or      Newborn.                      
 less).                                                                 
More than 5 kg-10 kg (22 lb)............  Newborn.                      
                                          9-month-old.                  
More than 10 kg-18 kg (40 lb)...........  9-month-old.<SUP>*                 
                                          3-yr-old.                     
More than 18 kg or 40 lb................  6-yr-old.                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>* This dummy is not to be used to test booster seats.                   

Compliance Dates

    The rule was drafted to have one compliance date for add-on child 
restraint systems, and another for built-in systems. The compliance 
date for add-on child restraint systems was January 3, 1996 (which is 
180 days after the publication date of the rule), and for built-in 
systems, September 1, 1996.

Rationale for Different Dates

    Different compliance dates were established due to NHTSA's belief, 
at the time, that add-on restraint manufacturers did not need so much 
time to comply with the amendments as did built-in restraint 
manufacturers. In the apparent absence of comments objecting to the 
proposed 180 day effective date, the agency concluded that 
manufacturers of add-on systems could comply with the proposed period 
of 180 days. In contrast, there were comments indicating that a 180-day 
effective date would be insufficient for built-in restraint 
manufacturers. In commenting on the NPRM, an individual built-in 
restraint manufacturer (Ford) and a association of built-in restraint 
manufacturers (American Automobile Manufacturers Association) requested 
a September 1, 1996 compliance date for amending the standard with 
regard to built-in systems. Ford stated that the proposed 180-day 
period would not provide enough time for it to test all its built-in 
systems to the adopted requirements and make any needed design changes. 
Ford also said that 180 days is insufficient to enable it to modify the 
labeling of its built-in restraints, or to change the vehicle owner's 
guides of the vehicles equipped with built-in systems, in accordance 
with the rule. Ford indicated that a September 1, 1996 compliance date 
would better allow it to incorporate necessary changes in the vehicle 
owner's manual, since the manuals are usually printed in June or July 
of the model year. NHTSA concluded that a September 1, 1996 compliance 
date for built-in restraints ``gives motor vehicle manufacturers 
sufficient leadtime to evaluate their products and make any necessary 
changes to them, and prepare the labels and owners manuals for the new 
model vehicles without unnecessary burdens.'' 60 FR 35138.

Correction of Effective Date

    As noted above, the agency drafted the rule so that the ``effective 
date'' for add-on child restraint systems was January 3, 1996, and the 
``effective date'' for built-in systems was September 1, 1996. This 
wording did not conform to the drafting practices of the Federal 
Register. Based on the language of 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (formerly 
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), NHTSA has 
traditionally used the term ``effective date'' to mean 

[[Page 63653]]
the date on and after which any vehicle or item of equipment subject to 
a rule must comply with the requirements of the rule. The Federal 
Register uses different terminology. It calls this date the rule's 
``compliance date,'' not its ``effective date.'' For Federal Register 
purposes, the ``effective date'' of a rule is the date on which the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is amended to reflect the changes set 
forth in the rule. Since the amendments of a rule appear in the CFR on 
the ``effective date'' of the rule, amendments cannot vary in effective 
date by subject matter, e.g., a rule cannot have one effective date for 
add-on systems and another for built-in systems.
    On September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50477), NHTSA corrected the error by 
correcting the DATES section of the final rule to specify that the rule 
is effective (as the Federal Register uses that term) on January 3, 
1996, with two provisos. The provisos, relating to the compliance dates 
of the rule, are as follows:

    However, manufacturers of built-in child restraint systems may 
comply with existing requirements for built-in systems (as of July 
6, 1995) until September 1, 1996.
    Manufacturers of add-on child restraint systems may comply with 
existing requirements for add-on systems (as of July 6, 1995) until 
January 3, 1996.

    The correction conformed the wording of the DATES section to 
Federal Register drafting practices. It did not affect the compliance 
date of the amendments made by the rule. Thus, beginning January 3, 
1996, each add-on restraint would have to meet the performance criteria 
and labeling requirements specified in the standard when tested with 
the test dummies specified by the rule, including, if appropriate for a 
particular restraint, the newly-adopted dummies.

Petitions for Reconsideration of Compliance Date

    Cosco Inc. and Gerry Baby Products Company, two manufacturers of 
add-on child restraint systems, petitioned for reconsideration of the 
January 3, 1996 compliance date for add-on restraints. Both 
manufacturers requested NHTSA to change the date to September 1, 1996, 
to make the compliance date the same as that for built-in restraint 
manufacturers.
    In support of its petition, Cosco said it needs a leadtime longer 
than 180 days to test its products and make needed design and tooling 
changes. Cosco disagreed with NHTSA's statement in the final rule that 
``No comment was received on leadtime for add-on restraints.'' (60 FR 
at 35137) Cosco said it had commented on the issue, and quoted a 
statement in its comment which stated: ``Whatever changes are made to 
the standard, Cosco reminds NHTSA that manufacturers need enough time 
to deplete inventories of printed materials (at least 6 months) or 
develop complying designs (up to 2 years).'' In its petition, Cosco 
said that:

    While this two year time period may be compressed to some 
degree, certain critical elements of the design, development, 
tooling and testing of a new add-on child restraint cannot be 
accelerated. For instance, the tooling time for the mold for an add-
on child restraint shell is approximately six months. This does not 
include time for fine tuning the tool after it is completed and for 
testing the first production adequately to ensure that safety 
guidelines and compliance with FMVSS 213 are met. * * *

    Cosco believed there is no reason to have a compliance date for 
add-on systems that differed from that for built-in systems. It stated:

    The discussion in the final rule regarding Ford's comments 
essentially reflects the same concerns that Cosco raised in response 
to the NPRM. * * * This arbitrary distinction will have an 
unnecessary, negative impact on add-on restraint manufacturers and 
should be amended as requested.

    Gerry Baby Products raised similar concerns in its petition. Gerry 
said that 180 days does not provide enough time for it to sufficiently 
test its products to the new requirements and implement any necessary 
design changes. Gerry also stated:

    This short phase-in time period may result in Gerry Baby and 
other child restraint manufacturers pulling a significant percentage 
of shield type booster seats (for which head excursion limits may be 
an issue) from the market. Thus, the end result of the 180-day 
effective date could be a significant time period in which the 
retail market would have minimal, if any, shield-type booster seats 
available. Consumers with Type I seat belt systems in the rear seats 
of their vehicles would thus probably have no child restraints 
available to restrain their 40 to 60 pound children.

    Gerry requested that the compliance date for add-on restraints and 
built-in restraints be the same, September 1, 1996.

Agency Decision

    NHTSA has reviewed the petitions and has decided that, for add-on 
systems, the compliance date for the July rule should be changed to 
September 1, 1996. NHTSA adopted a 180-day compliance date, as 
proposed, for the rule for add-on systems because a longer leadtime did 
not seem necessary. In its petition for reconsideration, Cosco and 
Gerry have provided information explaining why they believe that the 
rule's original compliance date ``is not practicable, is unreasonable, 
or is not in the public interest.'' 49 CFR 553.35. The agency agrees 
that, similar to built-in restraint manufacturers, manufacturers of 
add-on systems need sufficient time to evaluate their products and make 
any necessary changes to them. As noted by Gerry, shield boosters, in 
particular, will likely need to be redesigned to meet Standard 213's 
head excursion requirement when tested with the 6-year-old dummy. 
Shield boosters, used for older children who have outgrown a 
convertible or toddler seat, enables a Type I (lap only) vehicle belt 
to more properly fit the child by preventing the belt from riding up 
across the child's stomach.
    NHTSA is therefore extending the compliance date for add-on systems 
to ensure that adequate time is provided add-on restraint manufacturers 
to test their seats and implement necessary design changes. This will 
also ensure the continued availability of shield booster seats. The 
compliance date of the July 1995 final rule, as corrected September 29, 
1995, is delayed to September 1, 1996 for add-on restraints.

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 only extends the compliance date 
of the July 6, 1995 final rule, which amended Standard 213. There will 
be no additional costs associated with this final rule.

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. Since this document simply extends the compliance date of a 
previously-issued rule, no costs are associated with it. Accordingly, 
the agency has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.

[[Page 63654]]


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 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 49 
U.S.C. 30103, 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. 49 U.S.C. 30161 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.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on December 7, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-30233 Filed 12-7-95; 2:11 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P