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 42]

RIN 2127-AF02

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

[[Page 35127]]

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends Standard No. 213, Child Restraint

Systems, to add a greater array of sizes and weights of test dummies to

Standard 213 for use in compliance tests. This rule improves the safety

of child restraint systems by providing for evaluation of their

performance in a more thorough manner. Incorporating additional test

dummies for use in compliance tests has been one of NHTSA's main

initiatives for upgrading Standard 213. It also responds to the NHTSA

Authorization Act of 1991 (sections 2500-2509 of the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act (``ISTEA'')), which directed NHTSA to

initiate rulemaking on child seat safety.

DATES: For add-on (portable) child restraint systems, this rule is

effective on January 3, 1996. For built-in systems, this rule is

effective on September 1, 1996.

Petitions for reconsideration of the rule must be received by

August 7, 1995.

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: Dr. George Mouchahoir, Office of

Vehicle Safety Standards (telephone 202-366-4919), or Ms. Deirdre

Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel (202-366-2992), National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C.,

20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

a. Current requirements.

b. Statutory and regulatory origins.

c. Calspan booster seat study.

1. Calspan's findings.

2. Follow up testing.

3. Implications of research findings.

d. Overview of NPRM.

e. Overview of comments.

f. Overview comparison of NPRM and final rule

II. Amendments for new dummies

a. General acceptability.

b. Specific issues.

1. Metrication.

2. Dummy selection based on recommended mass and height of child

restraint users.

A. Mass ranges.

B. Number and types of dummies.

C. Height ranges.

3. Performance criteria.

A. Seat back height.

B. Buckle release.

C. Head and chest forces.

4. Other amendments.

5. Leadtime.

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and

Procedures

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act

c. Executive Order 12612

d. National Environmental Policy Act

e. Executive Order 12778

I. Background

This rule amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213,

``Child Restraint Systems'' (49 CFR 571.213), to add three test dummies

for use in compliance testing under the standard and to remove one of

the two dummies currently used. The effect of this amendment is to

provide a better evaluation of the ability of child restraint systems

to restrain the range of children recommended for those systems. The

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule was published March

16, 1994 (59 FR 12225).

a. 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 (weighing 20 pounds) or less. That dummy,

which is uninstrumented, 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.

b. Statutory and Regulatory Origins

This rulemaking addresses several goals of NHTSA. Amending Standard

213 to incorporate additional test dummies for use in compliance tests

has been one of NHTSA's main initiatives for upgrading Standard 213.

See, NHTSA's ``Planning Document on the Potential Standard 213

Upgrade,'' July 1991 (docket 74-09-N21). The addition of new test

dummies has long been supported by manufacturers, researchers and

others in the child passenger safety community. See, comments on

planning document, docket 74-09-N21. Amending Standard 213 to

incorporate additional test dummies for use in compliance tests also

furthers the goals of the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 (sections

2500-2509 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

(``ISTEA'')). That Act directed the agency to initiate rulemaking on

child booster seat safety and other issues.

In response to ISTEA, NHTSA initiated rulemaking by publishing an

advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on May 29, 1992 (57 FR

22682). Two rulemaking actions resulted from the ANPRM. The first,

completed July 21, 1994 (59 FR 37167), facilitated the manufacture of

``belt-positioning'' child seats (booster seats designed to be used

with a vehicle's lap/shoulder belt system). Facilitating the

manufacture of belt-positioning seats fulfilled the goal of ISTEA

because belt-positioning seats improve child seat safety. They are

capable of accommodating a wider range of child sizes than currently

manufactured shield-type booster seats. Also, belt-positioning seats

used with vehicle lap/shoulder belts appear to perform better than

shield booster seats used with vehicle lap/shoulder belts. (The

performance of the shield-type booster seems to be negatively affected

when the shoulder belt is routed in front of the child. However, the

performance of this booster seat did not appear to be significantly

affected when the shoulder portion of the belt system is routed behind

the child, when compared to tests conducted with a lap-only belt.)

Today's final rule completes the second rulemaking action resulting

from the ISTEA-directed 1992 ANPRM. This

[[Page 35128]]

rule furthers the goals of ISTEA, which were illuminated by the

legislative history for the directive found in Sec. 2503 of the

Authorization Act. The directive evolved from a booster seat safety

provision in S. 1012, a bill reported by the Senate Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and added verbatim to the

Senate's surface transportation bill (S. 1204). (S. 1012, 102d Cong.,

1st Sess. Sec. 209 (1991).) 1 The Senate Commerce Committee report

on S. 1012 expressed concern about suggestions that booster seats,

``depending on their design, can be easily misused or are otherwise

harmful.'' The Committee also stated that the mandate in S. 1012 was a

response to concerns expressed in a study performed for NHTSA entitled,

``Evaluation of the Performance of Child Restraint Systems.'' According

to the Committee, the study showed that some booster seats ``may not

restrain adequately a child in a crash, and some may put pressure on

the child's abdomen during a crash.'' Senate Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation, S. Rep. No. 83, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 6,

18 (1991).

\1\ As adopted by the Senate, the provision would have required

rulemaking to be initiated within 30 days after the date of

enactment of the Authorization Act and completed within 12 months

after the date of the enactment. The conferees adopted the booster

seat provision from the Senate bill, but amended it so that it no

longer required that the booster seat rulemaking be both initiated

and completed within a specified period of time. Instead, it simply

required that rulemaking on that subject be initiated within a

specified period of time. Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2950,

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 404, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991).

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

c. Calspan Booster Seat Study

The booster seat study mentioned in the legislative history for

H.R. 2950 was performed for NHTSA by Calspan Corporation. The study,

``Evaluation of the Performance of Child Restraint Systems,'' DOT HS

807 297, May 1988, evaluated the performance of ``shield-type'' booster

seats in restraining children of the size and age for whom those seats

were recommended. Shield-type boosters are designed to be secured to

the vehicle seat by a lap belt that usually is placed around the

shield. The shield restrains the upper torso of the child from moving

forward in a frontal crash or sudden stop.

Concerns about shield-type boosters arose from the recommendations

by manufacturers about the size of children which could appropriately

use a particular booster. Particular designs or models of boosters were

typically recommended for a broad range of children. Often, the seats

were recommended for use by children whose masses are from about 9 to

32 kg (weighing from about 20 to 70 pounds). Such recommendations

engendered concerns as to whether these boosters could provide adequate

protection for children ranging from nine-month-old infants, whose

average mass is 9 kg (20 pounds), to six-year-old and older children

(an average six-year-old's mass is 22 kg (48 pounds).

The study discussed issues that are not addressed by current

Standard 213. The ability of the restraint to protect children at or

near the extremes of the recommended mass/weight range cannot currently

be determined in Standard 213 compliance testing. As noted above, a

booster's compliance with the standard is evaluated using only the

three-year-old child dummy, whose mass is 15 kg (33 pounds). So tested,

the restraints must meet Standard 213.

However, the Calspan program was not limited to the three-year-old

dummy. Two other dummies were used, one representing a nine-month-old

infant and the other, a six-year-old child. (These are the two sizes of

the dummies adopted in today's rule.) The array of dummies represented

children at the extremes of the weight ranges identified by the

manufacturer as being suitable for the restraint.

The Calspan research program tested all 11 of the booster seats on

the market during summer 1987. All 11 boosters were recommended for use

by children with a minimum mass of 11 kg to a mass of 25 kg (weighing a

minimum of 25 to 55 or more pounds). They were tested in a 48 kph (30

mph) sled test with the three-year-old and six-year-old dummies. Six

booster seats were recommended for use by children whose masses are 11

kg or less (25 pounds or less). These seats were tested with the nine-

month-old dummy, in addition to the two other dummies.

1. Calspan's Findings

Calspan found dummy head excursions exceeding the 810 millimeter

(mm) (32 inch) limit specified in Standard 213. In tests with the six-

year-old dummy, the head excursion limit was exceeded by 9 out of 11

booster seat models, with measurements in the range from 810 to 900 mm

(32.0 to 35.4 inches). In the research tests with the three-year-old

dummy, the head excursion limit was exceeded by five of the 11 models.

Head excursions did not exceed the limit in tests with the nine-month-

old dummy.

Calspan also tested four of the shield-type booster seats that were

recommended for older children by restraining the six-year-old dummy in

the seat with a three-point auto harness. Three of the models showed

HIC numbers of approximately 900, the fourth had a HIC of 1238.

Calspan observed dummy ejections from the seats during the rebound

phase of the dynamic test. Ejections occurred for three out of six

models tested with the nine-month-old dummy, for two models tested with

the three-year-old dummy, and for one model tested with the six-year-

old dummy.

2. Follow Up Testing

NHTSA conducted additional research testing following the Calspan

study to obtain more data about booster seat performance with different

dummies.

Nine booster seats were tested with the three dummies used in the

Calspan study. The seats performed well with the three-year-old dummy;

the performance measures of Standard 213 were satisfied. However, the

seats were generally unsuitable for the nine-month-old dummy. The dummy

was ejected from seven of nine seats. Similarly, the seats generally

did not provide adequate restraint for the six-year-old dummy. Seven of

nine seats yielded head excursions that exceeded 810 mm (32 inches).

Two of the seats also had structural failures with the six-year-old

dummy. ``Evaluation of Booster Seat Suitability for Children of

Different Ages and Comparison of Standard and Modified SA103C and

SA106C Child Dummies,'' VRTC-89-0074, February 1990.

3. Implications of Research Findings

The implication of the Calspan and NHTSA test results was that test

dummies representative of a wide range of child sizes were needed in

Standard 213 to more effectively test the performance of booster seats

and other child restraint systems. What seemed especially needed was an

array of dummies representing children at or near the extremes of the

weight ranges identified by a manufacturer as being suitable for any

type of child restraint.

With the end in mind of incorporating new dummies into Standard 213

for compliance testing purposes, NHTSA completed specifications for the

newborn, 9-month-old and 6-year-old child test dummies. The agency also

completed rulemaking in 1991 and 1993 incorporating those

specifications into Part 572, the agency's regulation on

anthropomorphic test dummies. The biofidelity, reliability and

repeatability of the test dummies were discussed in the documents

incorporating the dummies into part 572. See, final rule

[[Page 35129]]

for newborn dummy (January 8, 1993, 58 FR 3229); 9-month-old dummy

(August 19, 1991; 56 FR 41077); 6-year-old dummy (November 14, 1991; 56

FR 57830). Those rulemakings on part 572 standardized the test dummies

and comprised a first step toward incorporating the dummies into

Standard 213 compliance tests. Following that rulemaking, NHTSA issued

the NPRM for today's rule.

d. Overview of NPRM

That NPRM proposed adding the newborn, 9-month-old and 6-year old

child test dummies to Standard 213. It specified how NHTSA would

determine the child dummy or dummies to be used in testing a particular

child restraint system. It proposed detailed descriptions of the

clothing, conditioning and positioning procedures for the dummies to

ensure that the test conditions are carefully controlled. It proposed

the use of these dummies to determine compliance with existing

performance criteria (e.g., head and chest injury criteria and

excursion limits) that a child restraint must meet before, during and

after dynamic testing involving restraint of a dummy. The NPRM proposed

to allow manufacturers 180 days leadtime to comply with the proposed

requirements (i.e., proposed an effective date for the rule of 180 days

after the date on which the rule is published).

In addition, the NPRM proposed miscellaneous amendments to Standard

213. The notice also sought to obtain information on child restraining

devices that are designed to be attached to a vehicle's Type II belt

system to improve the fit of the belts on children (and in some cases,

on small adults).

e. Overview of Comments

The NPRM attracted a variety of commenters. Commenters included

vehicle and child seat manufacturers (Ford, Cosco, Safeline Children's

Products, Century Products); a child seat accessory manufacturer

(Redlog Products Inc.); a dummy manufacturer (First Technology Safety

Systems); industry groups (American Automobile Manufacturers

Association, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety); and child

passenger groups and consultants (Advocates for Highway and Auto

Safety, CompUTence, the University of Michigan-Child Passenger

Protection Program, SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A.). Commenters also included

Transport Canada, the Australian Roads and Traffic Authority, United

Airlines, and the University of Illinois.

Commenters were generally favorable toward the idea of adding a

newborn, 9-month old and 6-year old test dummy to FMVSS 213. (A few

commenters, discussed below in the next section, raised a concern about

whether adding new dummies was justified.) Several commenters suggested

adding newer, more advanced dummies. Many commenters suggested changes

on the proposed criteria to be used in determining which dummies would

be used to test a particular child restraint (i.e., the proposed weight

and height ranges). There were also comments on the proposed

performance criteria that a child restraint must meet when restraining

the dummy used to test the restraint. Some commenters suggested a

longer leadtime for any new requirement. These and other issues are

discussed below.

f. Overview Comparison of NPRM and Final Rule

The main differences between the provisions of this final rule and

those of the NPRM relate to the following matters. This rule clarifies

the provisions used to determine which dummy is used to test a child

restraint system. It also requires that each child restraint be labeled

with information regarding the standing height (instead of sitting

height) of children for which the restraint is designed. This rule

slightly changes the provisions for testing buckle release

requirements, so that only the heavier dummy of a range of dummies will

be used to assess compliance with the requirement. This rule also

changes how compliance with the standard's knee excursion requirement

for built-in seats will be evaluated. In addition, the rule excludes

child seats with a mass of less than 4 kg from an adopted requirement

that the mass of the child seat not impose any load on the child

occupant in a crash. In response to commenters, a longer leadtime for

the rule is provided to manufacturers of built-in restraint systems.

II. Amendments for New Dummies

a. General Acceptability

Overall, commenters supported the proposal to add new test dummies

to Standard 213 compliance testing. However, as discussed below, some

commenters suggested adding dummies other than those proposed in the

NPRM. Some commenters also recommended changes to the provisions for

determining which dummy or dummies are to be used for testing child

restraints.

Concerning the first issue, some commenters wanted NHTSA to adopt

newer, and what they believed to be more advanced, dummies than the

proposed child dummies. The American Automobile Manufacturers

Association (AAMA) agreed with adopting the newborn infant dummy and

retaining the 3-year-old dummy currently specified in Standard 213.

However, AAMA suggested adopting a new 12-month-old dummy (referred to

as the Child Restraint and Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) dummy) instead

of the proposed 9-month-old dummy, and a 6-year-old child dummy based

on the 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy, instead of the proposed

part 572 6-year-old dummy (referred to as the SA106C dummy). ``These

new [CRABI and Hybrid III] dummies have improved anthropometric

emulation and have superior instrumentation capability.'' The commenter

said that while the calibration and user's manual for the dummies is

not yet completed, they should be completed by the time of the

effective date of today's final rule. First Technology Safety Systems,

Inc., a dummy manufacturer, commented that the ``design and

development'' of the CRABI 12-month-old dummy and the Hybrid III six-

year-old dummy ``have been completed and are commercially available.''

In addition, First Technology, a dummy manufacturer, stated that the

CRABI 12-month-old and 18-month old dummies are also commercially

available.

The issue of whether NHTSA should adopt the Hybrid-III six-year-old

dummy instead of the SA 106C dummy was addressed in the NPRM and in the

rule adopting the six-year-old dummy specifications into part 572.

NHTSA's position has been that, while the Hybrid-III dummy might have

potential advantages over the SA106C dummy in the number of injury

parameters the dummies can measure, rulemaking on the latter dummy

should not be delayed pending assessment of the performance of the new

dummy. NHTSA stated in the part 572 final rule:

The SA106C dummy's ability to measure HIC, chest acceleration

and femur loads, and its ability to replicate the motions and

excursions of a child in a crash are sufficient to provide valid

assessment of the injury potential of child restraint systems in a

reliable manner. Since the SA106C dummy is ready now, and a final

rule specifying the dummy will help improve safety, the agency

believes it is appropriate to proceed with adding the dummy to part

572.

Likewise, NHTSA believes rulemaking adopting use of a six-year-old

dummy in Standard 213 compliance tests should not be delayed pending

evaluation of the suitability and availability of the dummy as a test

device. Such evaluation will be

[[Page 35130]]

undertaken in the near future. The Insurance Institute for Highway

Safety (IIHS) concurred with the agency's tentative decision that

incorporating a six-year-old dummy into Standard 213 should not wait

for the Hybrid III six-year-old dummy.

The CRABI 12-month-old dummy appears to have a number of advantages

over the nine-month-old part 572 dummy. Problems instrumenting the

nine-month-old dummy arose during the course of the dummy's

development. Those problems, relating to the repeatability and

reproducibility of the head and chest accelerometer measurements, led

the agency to decide the dummy could not be instrumented at the time.

By contrast, the CRABI 12-month-old dummy has accelerometers to measure

head, chest and pelvic acceleration and head angular acceleration.

Preliminary indications from tests performed on the dummy by members of

the Infant Dummy Task Group of the Society of Automotive Engineers

(SAE) show that the CRABI dummy has good potential as a Standard 213

test device.

However, the CRABI 12-month dummy is not ready for use as a

Standard 213 compliance instrument. Its evaluation by industry and

users has identified possible problems with the dummy. For example, the

dummy systematically vibrated during dynamic testing, and its neck did

not appear to have adequate rotational capability. In February 1995,

the dummy was finalized by the manufacturer and evaluated by the SAE

Infant Dummy Task Force. NHTSA is in the process of procuring the dummy

and instrumentation for evaluation. Transport Canada believes that,

until the one-year-old dummy is ready, the proposed nine-month-old is

appropriate for testing.

Commenters seeking to have NHTSA adopt dummies that are more

advanced than the proposed dummies did not show that the latter dummies

have limitations warranting their exclusion from use in Standard 213

testing. Information on the performance of the dummies in tests

conducted subsequent to their incorporation into Part 572 did not

indicate any problems with their performance. Recently, these dummies

were used along with the Part 572 three-year-old in a large number of

sled tests that NHTSA conducted as part of its child safety research

program that was described in the agency's 1991 planning document to

upgrade Standard 213. These dummies appeared to perform satisfactorily.

The findings of this research program were summarized in a series of

reports that were published in October 1992, under project VRTC-82-0236

``Child Restraint Testing (Rulemaking Support).'' These reports are

available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield,

Virginia, 22161.

In the event NHTSA decides that it would be desirable to undertake

rulemaking to adopt newer, more advanced test dummies, it would be

prudent for the agency also to consider the availability of child

dummies other than the CRABI dummies as possible Standard 213 test

devices. For example, the Institute Voor Wegtransportmiddelen (TNO) of

the Netherlands is developing the TNO P1-1/2 dummy to represent an 18-

month-old child. NHTSA cannot ascertain the suitability of the Hybrid-

III six-year-old and the CRABI 12-month-old dummies as Standard 213

test devices, nor their superiority over alternative test dummies,

without taking appropriate steps to evaluate their relative

performance.

Ford raised an issue about the suitability of the 6-year-old dummy

based on a film of the 6-year old dummy in a dynamic test. The

commenter said that on the film, the dummy seemed to have an unusual,

unrealistic abdominal design that prevents the dummy from submarining

(i.e., sliding too far forward and downward, legs first) during the

test. Ford said that this feature will result in the dummy ``passing''

the knee excursion limit of FMVSS 213, when in an actual crash, a child

could submarine and thus be ejected.

NHTSA does not believe the design of the dummy results in the test

problems Ford identified. In the final rule that adopted the 6-year-old

dummy into Part 572 (56 FR 57830; November 14, 1991), NHTSA

acknowledged there is a gap at the pelvis-femur juncture of the dummy,

and that it seemed plausible that it could interfere with the dummy's

ability to assess the submarining potential of a restraint system. In

the rule, NHTSA said an apron-like shield could be used to cover the

gap, if tests with the 6-year-old dummy showed the gap to be a problem.

56 FR at 57835. NHTSA has not found any such problem. Over the last

several years, the agency extensively used the 6-year-old dummy in

tests of booster seats with lap or lap/shoulder belt systems. Films of

the tests do not show lap belts catching in the gap at the dummy's

abdomen. Accordingly, NHTSA concludes the dummy is suitable for

measuring submarining potential without the need for an apron.

(Examples of such testing are described in the following reports, which

are available from the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, Virginia, 22161: ``Evaluation of Belt-Positioning Booster

Seats and Lap/Shoulder Belt Test Procedures,'' DOT-HS-808-005, October

1992; and ``Booster Seat Evaluation, Belt Anchorage Location Effect and

Performance in Rear-Facing Seats,'' DOT-HS-808-092, September 1993.)

b. Specific Issues

This section discusses provisions for determining which dummy or

dummies are to be used for testing a particular child restraint, a

provision that allows booster seats to be certified without meeting the

seat back height requirement, injury criteria, buckle release

requirements and other amendments, and leadtime. In addition, this

section discusses metrication, an issue which seemed minor at the time

of the NPRM, but generated a number of comments.

1. Metrication

In accordance with its plan to convert its standards to the metric

system, NHTSA used metric and English units in the preamble of the NPRM

to describe the criteria (child's mass/weight and height) that would

determine which dummy or dummies would be used to test a child

restraint. The preamble stated that English units that are in sections

of Standard 213 affected by the NPRM would be converted to metric (SI,

The International System of Units) units in the rule. The preamble

stated, by way of example, that references to ``20 pounds'' would be

replaced by ``nine kilograms.'' The proposed regulatory text of the

NPRM used only metric units for most of the proposed amendments.

However, the proposed regulatory text showed only English units on the

restraint label that informs the consumer of the manufacturer's

recommendations for the maximum mass/weight and height of children who

can safely occupy the system.

Several commenters asked for clarification of the metrication of

the standard. The main concern of some commenters concerned the

exactness of the metric conversion. UM-CPP said that the use of SI

units in the standard and all English units in the labeling will cause

confusion. That commenter and AAMA suggested the labeling have SI units

for the primary units with reasonable English equivalents in

parentheses. Cosco suggested English units be used as the standard,

with approximate kilogram conversions.

The significance of these comments relates to Standard 213's

procedure for determining which test dummy is used to test a restraint.

Under the standard's

[[Page 35131]]

procedures, NHTSA reads the child restraint label to see what masses of

children are recommended for the restraint, then refers to the

provisions in the standard that specify which dummies are used to test

restraints with those usage particular recommendations. The commenters

wanted NHTSA to make clear which system of units (the SI or English

unit) it will use for selecting dummies to test a child restraint under

Standard 213. Some commenters were concerned that NHTSA will read a

label that makes recommendations in English units, will convert the

English units to SI units, then determine which dummy to use based on

the SI units (or vice versa). It was feared that in those instances in

which the upper or lower limit of a restraint manufacturer's

recommended range of users is very close to the dividing line in the

standard between different dummies, the conversion process could

broaden the range just enough to necessitate the use of a different

dummy in compliance testing.

NHTSA has made the following decisions on the metrication issue.

Since NHTSA is converting to the metric system, the agency agrees with

the commenters that SI units should be stated on the child seat label.

The agency also agrees with commenters that the American consumer

generally is not familiar with the metric system, and that English

units must therefore also be provided on the label. NHTSA does not

believe having both metric and English units will be confusing to

consumers; it is not uncommon for consumer goods to be labeled in both

units. As to which unit will control the selection of dummies for

compliance testing, since NHTSA is converting to the metric system, the

agency will refer only to the SI value to determine which dummy will be

used to test a child restraint. The English-expressed unit conversions

can be approximate equivalents, used to communicate the recommended

child's weight and height to the consumer. As a guide for converting SI

units to English ones, the University of Illinois provided the

following conversion factors, with which NHTSA agrees. The conversion

factor multiplier from pound mass to kilogram is 0.45359237, and the

muliplier from pound-force to newton is 4.4482216152605. Conversion

values are to be rounded to an appropriate number of significant

digits.

2. Dummy Selection Based On Recommended Mass and Height of Child

Restraint Users

Standard 213 requires each manufacturer to label its child

restraint with its recommendations for the maximum weight and height of

children who can safely occupy the system. Under the test procedures of

the standard, NHTSA selects the test dummies that would be used to test

a child restraint by referring to the weight recommendation. The NPRM

proposed to amend the procedures such that the agency would base its

selection of test dummies by referring to both the mass/weight and

height recommendations. (As noted in the previous section, under

today's rule, the SI value, rather than the English unit, will govern

the dummy selection.) As explained in section C below, NHTSA proposed

to use the recommended height as a criterion in the dummy selection as

a means of ensuring that the recommended mass ranges are consistent

with the recommended height ranges. For instance, without the

criterion, a manufacturer could create an inconsistency by recommending

a height range that corresponds to children who are of greater mass

than that expressly recommended by the manufacturer for that restraint.

A. Mass ranges. This rule revises the mass ranges proposed in the

NPRM for determining which dummies are to be used for testing a child

restraint.

The NPRM proposed the following provisions for determining

which dummy or dummies are to be used for testing child restraints.

A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer

for children in a specified weight range that includes any children

having a mass less than 4 kg (i.e., weighing less than approximately 9

pounds) is tested with a newborn test dummy conforming to part 572

subpart K.

A child restraint that is recommended for children in a

specified weight range that includes any children having masses from 4

to not more than 9 kg (weights of 9 to 20 pounds) is tested with a

newborn test dummy and a 9-month-old test dummy conforming to part 572

subpart J.

A child restraint that is recommended for children in a

specified weight range that includes any children having masses from 9

to not more than 13.5 kg (weights of 20 to 30 pounds) is tested with a

9-month-old test dummy and a 3-year-old test dummy conforming to part

572 subpart C.

A child restraint that is recommended for children in a

specified weight range that includes any children having masses equal

to or greater than 13.5 kg (30 pounds and above) is tested with a 3-

year-old test dummy and a 6-year-old test dummy conforming to part 572

subpart I.

For the convenience of the reader, the following table depicts

these provisions:

NPRM Ranges

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

Recommended mass of child suitable

for the restraint Dummy(ies) used for compliance test

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

Birth--4 kg or less (9 lbs or less) Newborn.

More than 4 kg--9 kg (20 lbs)...... Newborn--9-month-old.

More than 9 kg--13.5 kg (30 lbs)... 9-month-old--3-yr-old.

More than 13.5 kg or 30 lbs........ 3-yr-old--6-yr-old.

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

The NPRM proposed that, if a child restraint is recommended for a

weight range of children that overlaps, in whole or in part, two or

more of the ranges set out above, the restraint would be tested with

the dummies specified for each of those ranges. Thus, for example, if a

child restraint were recommended for children from birth to 13.5 kg,

the seat would be tested with the newborn, 9-month-old and 3-year-old

dummies.

The public commented on both the mass/weight classes and on the

size and number of the dummies that are used to test child restraints

in each weight class.

With regard to the mass/weight classes, all commenting child

restraint manufacturers and the University of Michigan Child Passenger

Program (UM-CPP) made almost identical suggestions for the break points

of the mass/weight classes. Some commenters stated that the second and

third mass classes should be divided at 10 kg (22 lbs), rather than 9

kg (20 lbs), as proposed. The commenters believed the rear-facing

position is safer for an infant, and the change would encourage

manufacturers to recommend positioning an infant rear-facing at least

until the child is one year old. The average one-year-old has a mass of

10 kg (22 lbs). Under the NPRM, an infant (rear-facing) seat

recommended for children up to 10 kg (22 lbs) could be tested with a

three-year-old dummy. UM-CPP believed the mass classes should be

divided at 10 kg to simplify the possible future incorporation of the

CRABI 12-month-old, 9.7 kg dummy into Standard 213.

Cosco stated that the proposed weight/mass classes could cause

problems for convertible restraints (a restraint that is adjustable so

that it can be used rear-facing by an infant or a very young child, and

forward-facing by a toddler). According to Cosco:

NHTSA's fourth category covers any car seats for children more

than 30 pounds. This includes both convertible seats and auto

boosters, and would force manufacturers to

[[Page 35132]]

test convertible seats with the 6-year-old dummy, which weighs from 4

to 7 pounds more than the maximum weight recommended for these seats

(40 to 43 pounds). The 6-year-old dummy is also 9'' taller than the

3-year-old dummy and would almost certainly exceed the head

excursion limit. Since it is doubtful that convertible car seats

could pass with the 6-year-old dummy, it is likely that

manufacturers would be forced to put a maximum weight of 30 pounds

on their convertible seats. The proposal as it stands would

therefore regulate out of existence one of the most effective types

of car seats available.

NHTSA concurs with the suggestions to revise the proposed mass/

weight classes. An infant must be transported rear-facing so that in a

crash, the forces are spread evenly across the infant's back and

shoulders, the strongest part of the child's body. Further, the back of

an infant's rear-facing head rests against the seating surface. In this

way, severe neck injuries are prevented. The child passenger safety

community unanimously advises that infants weighing less than 20 pounds

must face rearward. Moreover, child safety experts have recommended

that infants ride rear-facing even after achieving a 9 kg mass (20

pound weight), to better ensure that their skeletal and muscular

structure develop to a point where they can more safely withstand crash

forces in a forward-facing position. Raising the upper limit of the

mass/weight range to 10 kg (from the proposed 9 kg) as commenters

suggest supports manufacturers' efforts to recommend infants ride rear-

facing for a longer period.

NHTSA is also revising the mass/weight categories because it agrees

with Cosco's comment that convertible child restraints should not be

tested with the six-year-old, 21.5 kg (47.3 lbs) dummy. Convertible

restraints are typically recommended for children from newborn to 18 kg

(40 lbs). The six-year-old dummy is not representative of a child for

whom the restraint is recommended.

Accordingly, NHTSA adopts the following mass classes for

determining which dummies are used to test a child restraint system for

compliance with Standard 213.

Recommended mass of child suitable for the restraint:

Birth--5 kg (approximately 11 lbs) or less

More than 5 kg--10 kg (approximately 22 lbs)

More than 10 kg--18 kg (approximately 40 lbs)

More than 18 kg (approximately 40 lbs)

B. Number and Types of Dummies. There was no consensus on the size

and number of the dummies that should be used to test restraints in

each mass/weight class. Some commenters strongly supported testing

child restraints with a wider array of test dummies. SafetyBeltSafe

U.S.A. and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) supported

testing child restraints with at least two dummies, each dummy at the

minimum and maximum values for weight. Safeline supported using two

dummies ``for each restraint position (rear- and forward-facing) and

adjustment (upright, reclined, etc.).'' The Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety (IIHS) supported the proposal, stating that ``compliance

testing requirements and safety objectives are best served by requiring

each restraint to be tested with two dummies to represent a wide range

of child sizes . . .'' CompUTence, a consulting firm, supported using

multiple dummies for testing systems that span a range of proposed

occupants. That commenter stated:

With regard to dummy sizes, the requirements should reflect good

engineering practice. Common practice in the industry relative to

selecting dummy sizes to test system integrity is to use minimum and

maximum sizes to better understand what happens under the extremes

of the design intent. Typically we use the small dummy to insure

containment and large dummy to verify structural integrity of the

[child safety seat].

Conversely, some commenters disagreed with aspects of the proposal

that would provide for an infant seat, toddler seat (a child restraint

that positions a child forward-facing only and is not capable of being

adjusted to face an infant rearward) and a convertible seat to be

tested with more than one dummy when rear-facing, and more than one

dummy when forward-facing. UM-CPP and Century Products believed NHTSA

should test a child restraint using only the heaviest dummy in the

overall range specified by the manufacturer. These commenters believed

a rear-facing seat (either infant-only or convertible used rear-facing)

should be tested with the nine-month-old dummy only, rather than both

the infant and the nine-month-old dummies. They also believed a

convertible restraint in the forward-facing mode should be tested with

only the three-year-old dummy, rather than both the nine-month-old and

the three-year-old dummies. UM-CPP stated, ``[T]here is no useful

purpose in running a frontal crash test of such systems with the

Newborn rear-facing or the uninstrumented 9-month forward facing. No

ejection will occur, and the back angle and head excursions will

certainly not be exceeded.'' Century made the following remarks, which

were similar to those of UM-CPP:

We suggest [testing with only the largest of the dummies]

because testing with the 9-month imposes the greatest loads and has

a greater effect on seat back rotation, which is the primary

performance measurement for rear-facing seats, since the dummies are

uninstrumented. The NPRM does not give specific reasons or

supportive data indicating the need for testing rear-facing seats

with the newborn, so there does not appear to be identifiable

justification for the increased cost of testing with this additional

dummy rear-facing.

Cosco, a child seat manufacturer, did not expressly object to using

more than one dummy to test child restraints. However, the commenter

expressed its belief there was no safety need for the rulemaking since

child restraints are highly effective when used properly. The commenter

stated:

Cosco is unaware of any evidence that the seats are not

performing adequately when used correctly and requests NHTSA to

provide such information as a basis for the proposed changes. If

there is such evidence, which type of seat is not performing

adequately--infant-only, convertible or auto booster--and why adopt

alterations to the standard that affect all categories in order to

fix the one that allegedly doesn't? * * * With the possible

exception of some of the sections affecting auto booster seats,

Cosco is not convinced that this proposal will result in measurable

improvement in the performance of child restraints (although it will

increase their cost) * * *

NHTSA has reviewed all the comments and has made the following

decisions. The agency believes that child restraints should be tested

with child dummies representative of the children for whom the

restraint is recommended, to the extent such testing is supported by

safety considerations. UM-CPP and Century are unpersuasive on the point

of safety. They believe that, where a restraint falls in a mass/weight

class that specifies the use of more than one dummy, only the heaviest

dummy should be used to test child restraints. NHTSA disagrees. The

kinematics of a child restraint and the dummy that occupies the

restraint are dependent on the mass distribution and geometry of the

restraint system, and on the mass (in total and distributed) and the

dimensions of the occupant (height, sitting height and leg length). It

is only with an array of dummies representative of the children for

whom the restraint is recommended that the seat will be fully evaluated

in restraining the children likely to be occupying the seat.

CompUTence commented that ``manufacturers test with a minimum and

maximum size dummy to better

[[Page 35133]]

understand the extremes of the design intent.'' NHTSA concurs with this

commenter that the ability of a child restraint system to contain an

occupant is more effectively evaluated using a smaller dummy than a

larger one, and that the structural integrity of a restraint is better

evaluated using a larger dummy than a smaller one. This phenomenon, and

the fact that the kinematics of a child restraint and its occupant are

dependent on the mass and height of a child, and the distribution of

mass and height, were illustrated in NHTSA's test program following up

the Calspan program, supra. In the NHTSA program, nine booster seats

were tested with the nine-month-old, three-year-old and six-year-old

dummies. The seats performed well with the three-year-old dummy; the

performance measures of Standard 213 were satisfied. However, the nine-

month-old dummy was ejected from seven of nine seats. The six-year-old

dummy experienced excessive head excursion, i.e., exceeding 810 mm (32

inches) with seven of the nine seats. Two of the seats had structural

failures with the six-year-old dummy.

NHTSA concludes that the Calspan and VRTC studies show that dummies

representing children at or near the extremes of the weight ranges

identified by a manufacturer as being suitable for a restraint are

needed to evaluate different aspects of the performance of the

restraint. The smaller dummy will evaluate the potential for ejection.

The heavier dummy will evaluate the structural integrity of the

restraint system.

NHTSA further notes that an array will provide for a fuller

evaluation of a child restraint's ability to restrain a child when

subjected to the inversion test for restraints certified for use on

aircraft. In the test, the child restraint and test dummy are spun

around a horizontal axis. A smaller dummy is more likely to fall out of

the child restraint than a larger one.

UM-CPP, Century and Cosco believed the proposal would result in

unnecessary cost increases. They argued that testing a rear-facing seat

with the infant dummy, and a forward-facing restraint (other than a

booster seat) with the nine-month-old dummy would serve no useful

purpose since the commenters believe there is no question that the

restraints will pass the Standard 213 performance criteria using the

dummies. The agency disagrees that no useful purpose is served by

subjecting child restraints to tests with the array of dummies. When

child restraints are tested with only one dummy to represent a wide

range of children, there is a risk that a restraint could be designed

to perform adequately using the dummy, but could perform inadequately

in restraining children at the extremes of the recommended weight

ranges. Certainly this was the case for booster seats at the time of

the Calspan study. At that time, booster seats, which must not be used

with a child having a mass of less than 13.5 kg (weighing 30 lbs), were

often recommended for children with a mass as little as 9 kg (20

pounds). As noted at the beginning of this notice, under Standard 213,

the booster's performance is evaluated using only the 15 kg three-year-

old (33 lb) dummy, and so tested, the restraints met the standard. The

performance of the child restraints in protecting children near the

extremes of the recommended weight range (e.g., 20 lbs), while suspect,

could not be evaluated in a compliance test.2

\2\ It should be noted that Standard 213 was recently amended to

prohibit manufacturers from recommending a booster seat for a child

weighing less than 13.5 kg (30 lbs).

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

It should be noted that this rule does not require manufacturers to

test with all the specified dummies. A manufacturer may believe that

testing with only the largest of a set of specified dummies represents

``worst case'' testing, and that there is no need to test its

restraints with the smaller dummies. That is, a manufacturer may

determine that a child restraint meeting Standard 213's performance

criteria when tested under worst case conditions will likely meet those

criteria when tested under less severe conditions. A manufacturer that

tests its child restraint for certification purposes could limit its

testing cost by deciding to test only a worst case scenario, i.e.,

testing under the most austere or unfavorable conditions and

circumstances specified in the standard.3 In the event that the

agency found an apparent noncompliance, such as an ejection, using one

of the smaller dummies, the manufacturer would have to demonstrate that

it was reasonable for it to conclude that testing with the large dummy

represented the worst case scenario.

\3\ Relying on worst case testing as a basis for a

manufacturer's certification is commonplace among manufacturers. For

example, Standard 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection,'' requires

injury criteria to be met with the test vehicle traveling forward at

any speed ``up to and including 30 mph'' into a fixed barrier ``that

is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, or at any

angle up to 30 degrees in either direction from the perpendicular''

(S5.1). Manufacturers typically test a vehicle at 30 mph into a

perpendicular barrier since that is the worst case test. The

manufacturers believe that if the vehicle passes that worst case

test, it is reasonable to conclude it will pass less severe tests

(e.g., at lower speeds into angled barriers).

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

Ford believes it is inappropriate to test forward-facing built-in

restraints with the 9 kg nine-month-old (20 lb) dummy, because nine-

month-old children should be restrained rear-facing in either infant or

convertible restraints. NHTSA disagrees with the suggestion to forego

use of the nine-month-old as a test instrument for forward-facing

restraints. The dummy is representative of a 9 kg (20 lb) child, and is

useful in determining child seat performance. The agency notes that

Ford recommends its forward-facing built-in restraint systems for

children whose mass is from 9 to 27 kg (weighing 20 to 60 lbs). At 9 kg

(20 lbs), the nine-month-old dummy is an ideal test instrument for

testing the ability of the child restraint to retain a child at the

lower extreme of this recommended weight range.

NHTSA has decided that the following dummies will be used to test a

child restraint if any portion of the corresponding mass ranges in the

table falls within the mass range recommended by the manufacturer of

that restraint:

Adopted Provisions

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

Recommended mass of child suitable

for the restraint Dumm(ies) used for compliance test

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

Birth-5 kg or less (11 lb or less). Newborn.

More than 5 kg-10 kg (22 lb)....... Newborn.

9-month-old.

More than 10 kg-18 kg (40 lb)...... 9-month-old.\1\

3-yr-old.

More than 18 kg or 40 lbs.......... 6-yr-old.

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

\1\ This dummy is not to be used to test booster seats.

C. Height ranges. This rule adopts the proposed provision that

NHTSA will determine which dummy to use to test a particular child

restraint based on the restraint manufacturer's recommendations about

the height of the children for whom the restraint is intended. However,

rather than basing the provision on sitting height, as proposed, this

rule uses standing height. Standard 213 currently requires

manufacturers to provide recommendations concerning standing height.

All but Ford and UM-CPP concurred with using height as a criterion

for choosing the test dummy with which a child restraint will be

tested. IIHS and Advocates believed that recommended height ranges

should be considered in choosing a dummy, since that would better

ensure that the test dummy

[[Page 35134]]

represents a child who will be using the restraint. Ford's and UM-CPP's

comments, discussed further below, were based on their belief that the

standard should not require the labeling of height information.

Notwithstanding general concurrence, commenters disagreed on

whether to use sitting height or standing height. Advocates believed

that using sitting height rather than standing height ``appears to be

appropriate since it provides a more accurate measure of the height of

the torso from the hips to the head.'' The commenter believed using

sitting height ``should provide a closer match of the child to the

child restraint system in order to protect against head excursion and

head injury.'' On the other hand, Ford, AAMA, Century, Safeline and

Cosco opposed the use of sitting height. Century and Cosco believed

sitting height, while perhaps a relevant criterion for determining the

suitability of a restraint for a child, would nonetheless be useless

information because most parents do not know their child's sitting

height. Cosco stated ``there is little correlation between sitting and

standing height for manufacturers to give parents any guidance.'' Ford

said that wording about how to measure sitting height may reduce the

readability of the child seat label.

In lieu of a requirement that manufacturers provide sitting height,

many commenters suggested that NHTSA specify a sitting height limit

referencing what Century calls ``a readily identifiable body landmark,

such as the top of the ears or top of the head.'' Century stated:

For rear-facing seats the top of the head should not exceed the

top of the seat back, and for boosters with or without a seat back,

the child should no longer use the seat if the top of the ears are

above either the booster seat back or the vehicle seat back.

Ford, a manufacturer of built-in child seats, said it compares

anatomical landmarks on the child to physical features on the child

restraint. ``It is very easy for a parent to compare shoulder height to

the location of a shoulder belt slot or the top of the child's head to

the top of the head restraint, and the need for such physical limits is

more likely to be understood.'' Ford and UM-CPP recommended that NHTSA

not require manufacturers to label child seats with the recommended

height of children intended for the seats. These commenters further

suggested the test dummy used for Standard 213 compliance testing

should be selected solely on the recommended weight range for a

particular child restraint.

Based on the comments on the proposal and other information, NHTSA

reaches the following conclusions. Standard 213 currently requires

manufacturers to label each child restraint with recommendations for

the maximum height of children who can safely occupy the system.

S5.5.2(f), S5.5.4(f). The purpose of the requirement is to help ensure

the proper fit of restraint to child. The information helps consumers

purchase an appropriate child restraint. Information about the

suitability of a restraint for children of certain heights serves a

useful purpose.

On the other hand, NHTSA is mindful that consumers may not know the

sitting height of their child as well as they know standing height. The

latter is routinely measured and provided to parents during the child's

medical examinations. Because standing height is more familiar to

parents, this rule specifies recommended standing height, rather than

sitting height, to be on the label. Since requiring standing height

recommendations to be labeled is a current requirement of Standard 213,

this rule maintains the status quo. The agency is unconvinced of a need

to change it.

This rule provides for using the manufacturer's height

recommendations, in addition to the manufacturer's weight

recommendation, to select the test dummies used in Standard 213's

compliance test. The NPRM explained the basis for this provision. If

height were not a factor,

It might be possible for a restraint to be tested with a dummy

or dummies insufficiently representative of the range of children

recommended for the restraint. This could occur if a manufacturer

were to recommend inconsistent mass and height ranges. A

manufacturer could create an inconsistency by recommending a height

range that corresponds to children who are of greater mass (weight)

than the masses expressly recommended by the manufacturer for the

restraint.

For instance, suppose an infant restraint were recommended for

children with masses not more than 4 kilograms (approximately 9

pounds) and a sitting height of up to 475 mm. Although the use of

both the newborn and 9-month-old dummies would be more

representative of the users of the restraint, only the newborn dummy

would be used if dummy selection were based solely on the mass

recommendation. However, according to a report by the University of

Michigan on ``Physical Characteristics of Children as Related to

Death and Injury for Consumer Product Safety Design,'' Report No.

PB-242-221, of children with masses of 4 kilograms, those in the

95th percentile have a sitting height of approximately 450 mm. Since

the restraint is recommended for children with heights greater than

the 95th percentile child, NHTSA has tentatively determined that it

would be appropriate to test the infant restraint not only with the

infant dummy, but also with a test dummy representative of a taller

child (i.e., with the 9-month-old dummy).

NHTSA has decided that the following dummies will be used to test a

child restraint if any portion of their corresponding standing height

ranges falls under the maximum height recommendation of the

manufacturer of that restraint:

Adopted Provisions

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

Recommended height of child

suitable for the restraint Dumm(ies) used for compliance test

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

Not more than 650 mm (650 mm is Newborn

approximately the height of a 95th

percentile newborn male child).

More than 650 mm to 850 mm......... Newborn

9-month-old

More than 850 mm to 1100........... 9-month-old\1\

3-yr-old

More than 1100 mm.................. 6-yr-old

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

\1\ This dummy is not to be used to test booster seats.

Century stated:

While we agree that it makes sense to establish height limits

that correspond to weight limits to prevent a manufacturer from

inaccurately representing the usage range for a particular

restraint, we do not agree with combining mean values for weight

with 95th percentile values for height. This conflict of information

on a label could lead a consumer to the incorrect assumption that

even though their child weighs more than the weight listed but is

less than the height, that it is still all right to use the seat.

In response to Century, NHTSA is not requiring manufacturers to

label their restraints as suitable for children in the 95th percentile

for height. Rather, the rule would simply permit NHTSA to use a

manufacturer's height recommendation as a basis for choosing a test

dummy. Manufacturers have wide latitude in recommending the reasonable

height ranges they think are appropriate for their restraints.

A number of commenters suggested it would be worthwhile to label a

restraint with information using ``anatomical landmarks'' on the child

(e.g., top of the ears) so parents can determine when their children

have outgrown a particular child restraint. Manufacturers who want to

provide such information are free to do so. However, the agency will

not require such information to be labeled, for lack of need for such a

requirement. See, denial of Legath

[[Page 35135]]

petition for rulemaking (56 FR 3064; January 38, 1991).

3. Performance Criteria

The effect of specifying additional test dummies in Standard 213

compliance testing is to require child restraints to meet the

standard's performance criteria when restraining the new dummies. The

level of performance required of a child restraint will generally be

unchanged from that required presently of child seats when restraining

the six-month-old and three-year-old dummies. That is, the same

requirements of the standard for dynamic performance (including the

head and chest injury criteria and excursion), force distribution,

installation, belts and buckles and flammability will apply to all

restraints, regardless of the dummy used to test the restraint system.

However, there are two noteworthy exceptions.

A. Seat back. The first exception relates to S5.2.1.1, which

requires child seats to have a seat back to restrain rearward movement

of a child's head. This rule provides that the six-year-old dummy is

not used to determine the applicability of or compliance with the seat

back requirement. The reason for this decision was provided in the

NPRM:

The determination of whether a seat back is required on a child

restraint is based on the dummy used in the compliance testing of

the restraint. A child restraint need not have a seat back if a

specified point on the dummy's head (approximately located at the

top of the dummy's ears) is below the top of the standard seat

assembly to which the restraint is attached for compliance testing.

(S5.2.1.2) Booster seats are currently tested with the 3-year-old

dummy, which sits low enough on the standard seat assembly that the

point on the dummy's head is not above the top of the seat assembly.

Since that dummy is used, booster seats need not have seat backs. If

the 6-year-old dummy were to be incorporated into Standard 213 and

if S5.2.1 were to remain unchanged, the impact on booster seats

could be substantial. Most, if not all, booster seats (and perhaps

other types of child seats) might have to be redesigned to have a

seat back. This is because the sitting height of the 6-year-old

dummy is higher than that of the 3-year-old. As a result, the

critical point on the head of the 6-year-old dummy is likely to be

above the top of the seat assembly. 59 FR at 12229.

NHTSA was concerned that the additional costs associated with

redesigning booster seats to add a seat back were not justified from a

safety standpoint. The agency did not know of real world crash data

that indicate a problem with head or neck injuries in rear impact

crashes.

Some commenters addressed this proposal. Advocates, IIHS, and

SafetyBeltSafe supported it, with caveats. The following text is from

Advocates' comment:

Advocates believes that head restraint is essential in both

frontal and especially rear-end collisions. Child restraint systems

that do not provide head support present a safety problem and expose

children to the risk of head and neck injuries. At the same time, we

understand the concern that requiring backs on booster seats would

significantly alter the design, cost, and utility of booster seats.

A seat back requirement might reduce the affordability, convenience,

and use rate of booster seats. Since it is safer, as a general

proposition, to have children in properly secured restraint systems

than not, Advocates is not recommending that booster seats be

required to have backs.

The three commenters suggested a better approach than requiring

boosters to have seat backs would be to have improved head restraints

in the rear seating position of vehicles.

Transport Canada opposed the proposal. That commenter believed that

six-year-old children are just as likely to sustain neck injuries as

three-year-olds, so the six-year-old dummy should be used for the seat

back requirement. Transport Canada believed no additional costs of

redesign would be incurred if manufacturers restrict the use of

boosters to children whose mass is less than that which would require

testing with the six-year-old dummy (i.e., under this rule, to children

with mass less than 18 kg (40 lb).

NHTSA does not agree with Transport Canada. The data base on neck

injuries to small children is very limited. Data indicate that the

number and severity of neck injuries to children is relatively small.

Extrapolating data for 1992 from the state of Indiana to a national

basis results in an estimated 2,666 neck injuries in rear impacts, and

8,933 neck injuries in all impacts for children under nine years of

age. The injury was coded as a ``complaint of pain'' in 98 percent of

the cases. For rear impacts, whiplash is the most common injury (AIS

1). Further, the commenter's suggestion that boosters could be

restricted to children with masses less than 18 kg (40 lb) would impact

greatly on the current manufacture and sale of boosters, since

virtually all boosters are currently recommended for children with a

mass of 18 kg or more. That impact does not appear offset by a

commensurate safety benefit. Moreover, NHTSA recommends that children

should be kept in convertible or toddler seats as long as they will

fit, before a booster seat is used. Transport Canada's suggestion could

result in manufacturers recommending their boosters for children under

18 kg (40 lbs). Another result could be for parents to choose, for

their child, a vehicle belt system over a booster seat when the child

reaches 18 kg. Both results would be contrary to safety.

With regard to the suggestion of Advocates, IIHS and SafetyBeltSafe

to require head restraints in the rear seating positions of passenger

vehicles, the adoption of such a requirement is outside the scope of

this rulemaking. The agency notes that the issue was addressed in

NHTSA's 1989 rule requiring head restraints in light trucks and vans.

54 FR 39183. Several manufacturers have voluntarily provided head

restraints in rear seating positions of their vehicles. Also, after

Standard 213 was amended to allow the manufacture and sale of belt-

positioning booster seats in July 1994, some child restraint

manufacturers have incorporated head restraints into child restraints

(e.g., Century's Breverra belt-positioning seat).

B. Buckle release. The second exception to the generally unchanged

performance criteria relates to S5.4.3.5(b), a requirement for post-

impact buckle force release. Currently, S5.4.3.5(b) requires each child

seat belt buckle to release when a force of not more than 16 pounds is

applied, while tension (simulating a child restrained in the child

seat) is applied to the buckle. Tension is applied because a child in

the seat could impose a load on the belt buckle, which increases the

difficulty of releasing it. The test procedures for this requirement

(S6.2) specify that the applied tension is 20 pounds in the case of a

system tested with a 6-month-old dummy and 45 pounds in the case of a

system tested with a 3-year-old dummy. In both cases, the force level

is based on the heaviest children who are likely to use the child

restraint. NHTSA proposed to amend S6.2 so that the tension would be 50

newtons (N) when the system is tested with a newborn dummy, 90 N for

tests with a 9-month-old dummy, 200 N for tests with a 3-year-old

dummy, and 270 N for tests with a 6-year-old dummy. This rule adopts

the force levels (50 N, 90 N, 200 N and 270 N) proposed in the NPRM.

However, in response to Safeline, this rule limits the applicability of

the requirement, such that for any child seat orientation (forward-,

side- or rear-facing), only the largest of the dummies will be used to

test conformance with the requirement. For example, if a child seat is

recommended for a range of children such that it is subject to dynamic

testing in the forward-facing mode with both the three-year-old and

six-year-old dummies, only the latter dummy will be used for testing

the

[[Page 35136]]

buckle force release requirement. The larger the dummy used for the

test, the more difficult it is for a restraint to meet the requirement.

The smaller of two (or more) dummies therefore need not be used, since

no useful information will be gained.

C. Head and chest forces. This rule requires child seats to limit

the accelerations to 1,000 for the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) and 60

g's for the chest. The instrumented six-year-old child dummy will be

able to measure accelerations on the dummy head and chest when the

dummy is used in the testing of child restraints. These limits are the

same as those currently used in Standard 213 for tests with the

instrumented three-year-old child dummy. AAMA and UM-CPP referred to

the use of HIC in Standard 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection,'' and

suggested that the agency calculate HIC in Standard 213 tests in the

same manner it is calculated in Standard 208 tests. AAMA stated,

Although the agency has adopted a 36 ms limit on the HIC

calculation for Standard 208 testing, the HIC interval for Standard

213 testing is unstated. AAMA believes that use of a 15 ms limit on

the HIC interval would result in a test criterion that is more

representative of head injury risk for both the Subpart C [3-year-

old] and Subpart I [6-year-old] dummies.

In response to this comment, the agency notes that the commenters

are correct in saying that Standards 208 and 213 calculate HIC

differently. Standard 208 specifies a 36 ms limit for the time interval

used to calculate HIC (S6.1.2), while Standard 213 specifies that any

two moments may be used for the HIC calculation S5.1.2(a)). In Standard

213 compliance tests, the HIC value can and does differ according to

the time interval that is used to calculate HIC. NHTSA has used various

time intervals for the Standard 213 HIC calculation, including but not

limited to 36 ms.

At this time, the agency does not have sufficient information

justifying limiting the time interval to any interval, including 36 ms.

After receiving AAMA's comment, NHTSA evaluated Standard 213 sled test

data to determine how the HIC calculation is affected by limiting the

time interval. The evaluation showed that HIC values were generally

lower (in few cases, equal) when the time interval was limited to 36

ms, compared to when unlimited. Limiting the time interval could

therefore make it easier for a child restraint to pass the HIC

requirement, resulting in a lower level of safety protection for the

child occupant.

With regard to limiting the HIC calculation to a 15 ms interval,

the agency rejected a 15 ms limit in Standard 208 on the basis that it

would effectively allow higher head accelerations, and thus might not

ensure protection for a wide range of the population. (51 FR 37031;

October 17, 1986.) NHTSA rejects a 15 ms limit in Standard 213 for the

same reasons given when this matter was evaluated with regard to

Standard 208.

NHTSA further notes that child restraint manufacturers have been

successful at designing and manufacturing effective child restraint

systems without a limit on the time interval for the HIC calculation.

Changing the HIC criterion without information on the consequences of

such a change is unwarranted.

4. Other Amendments

This rule adopts three amendments unrelated to the addition of new

sizes of dummies to Standard 213. Two of the amendments clarify the

standard's excursion requirements. The excursion requirement for built-

in child restraints (S5.1.3.1(b)) currently prohibits the dummy's knee

pivot from passing through a plane that is a specified distance

``forward of the hinge point of the specific vehicle seat into which

the system is built.'' Chrysler suggested (docket 74-09-N24-001) that

NHTSA amend the reference point because the ``hinge point of the

specific vehicle seat'' cannot be readily determined for most vehicle

seats. This is because most vehicle seats into which a built-in child

restraint is fabricated do not have hinges for their backs, or are

configured so that the hinge point is not easily seen during dynamic

testing.

NHTSA proposed to address this concern by referencing the H-point

on the seat. That point is used as a reference point in S11 of Standard

208, ``Occupant Crash Protection,'' and in S4.3 of Standard 210, ``Seat

Belt Assembly Anchorages.'' Chrysler had suggested use of the H-point

reference. The H-point of a specific vehicle seating position is

determined by using equipment and procedures specified in the Society

of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended practice SAE J826 (May 1987),

``Devices for Use in Defining and Measuring Vehicle Seating

Accommodation.'' The H-point is identified either during the seat's

design by means of a two-dimensional drafting template, or after the

vehicle is completely manufactured, by means of a three-dimensional

device. The H-point is located at approximately the same location as

the ``hinge point'' on a vehicle seat.

NHTSA received comments on this proposal from Transport Canada,

AAMA (of which Chrysler is a member), Safeline, Century and UM-CPP.

Some commenters expressed concern that using the H-point as a reference

still results in ambiguity in the test procedure since the H-point

varies from vehicle to vehicle, and is not easily seen during dynamic

testing. All commenters suggested adopting Transport Canada's approach

to measuring knee excursion for built-in restraints. That approach

limits the forward knee movement to a maximum of 305 mm (12 inches) at

any time during the test from the initial knee position of the dummy.

Transport Canada stated, ``Our regulatory development testing has

proved that this approach produces satisfactory results.''

NHTSA has reviewed the comments and agrees to base the knee

excursion limit for built-in seats on the approach of Transport Canada.

Maximum knee translation is limited in terms of the initial position

the knee itself. NHTSA believes this is easier than measuring knee

displacement vis-a-vis the ``hinge point'' or H-point of the vehicle

seat. Knee excursion is currently measured using a point on the ``knee

pivot'' that is easily defined on the test dummy. The knee pivot point

is easily observed during the dynamic test. This rule limits the

longitudinal horizontal movement of the knee pivot point, from the

initial position of the knee pivot, to a maximum of 305 mm (12 inches).

The 12 inch value is equivalent to the level of performance currently

required by Standard 213 (i.e., 914 mm (36 inches) measured from the

hinge point of the seat assembly).

The other clarifying amendment relates to the excursion requirement

for rear-facing child restraints (S5.1.3.2). S5.1.3.2 currently states

that ``no portion of the target point on either side of the dummy's

head'' shall pass through an area on the child restraint. The quoted

language is revised to remove the reference to a ``portion'' of the

target point. The use of ``portion'' is incorrect since the target

point is dimensionless.

The third amendment relates to the requirement in the standard that

limits the force that may be imposed on a child by the vehicle belt

used to anchor the child seat to the vehicle (S5.4.3.2). S5.4.3.2

currently specifies, for add-on child restraints (another provision

specifies comparable requirements for built-in restraints):

Each belt that is part of a child restraint system and that is

designed to restrain a child using the system and to attach the

system to the vehicle shall, when tested in accordance with [the

dynamic test of] S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from

[[Page 35137]]

the mass of the system, or * * * [from] the mass of the seat back of

the standard seat assembly. * * *

The NPRM proposed to expand S5.4.3.2 to also apply it to each Type

I and the lap portion of a Type II vehicle belt that is used to attach

the child seat to the vehicle. These belts, which anchor the child seat

to the vehicle, function to absorb the forces of the crash into the

frame of the vehicle. NHTSA proposed that these belts not be permitted

to transfer those crash forces to the occupant child.

The agency received many comments on this proposal. SafetyBeltSafe

and Advocates supported it. They believed the standard should prohibit

a vehicle lap belt used to secure a child restraint to the vehicle from

transferring any crash forces to the child. Safeline, Ford, Century,

and UM-CPP expressed concerns about the proposal. Safeline believed the

proposal is ambiguous, since it does not specify how the prohibited

loading would be measured. Ford, Century and UM-CPP shared concerns

about the effect of the proposal on belt-positioning seats (boosters

designed for use with a vehicle's lap/shoulder belt system) with seat

backs. UM-CPP stated that any such booster will load the child into the

lap belt, as well as into the shoulder belt. Moreover, the commenter

said it does ``not think it is practical to measure the load imposed on

the dummy.'' UM-CPP and Century suggested retaining the proposal but

excluding from the requirement any restraint with a mass of less than 4

kg (weight of less than 8.8 lbs). These commenters indicated the 4 kg

limit is consistent with requirements in Europe and the current U.S.

market. Century stated, ``There is field experience with numerous

designs in Europe, and testing we have done with our Breverra [which

weighs less than 3 kg] indicates no increases in any measurable injury

criteria resulting from belt loads.''

Based on the comments and other information, NHTSA amends S5.4.3.2

as follows. NHTSA agrees with the commenters that, as proposed,

S5.4.3.2 would prohibit belt-positioning seats with a back, since the

mass of those systems contributes to the loading of the vehicle seat

belt on the restrained child during a crash. That effect was unintended

by the agency. NHTSA further believes that totally avoiding a load on

the child, as proposed, is very difficult, if not impossible to achieve

with present designs of belt-positioning seats. The proposed

requirement might be impracticable as long as the lap portion of a Type

II vehicle belt is used to attach the system to the vehicle and

restrain the child. NHTSA does not believe there is a sufficient safety

problem to warrant prohibiting current designs of belt-positioning

seats with backs. There are no data showing injuries caused by seat

back loads imposed on a child. On the other hand, limits should be

established to keep in check the potential for injury due to

overloading a child occupant. Overloading could occur from a massive

child seat back. For this reason, this rule limits the loads imposed on

a child by prohibiting any loads except those resulting from a child

seat with a mass less than 4 kg. No data have emerged from the field

showing that a child seat with a mass less than 4 kg imposes harmful

loads on a child. The effect of this requirement will likely keep the

masses of belt-positioning seats at less than 4 kg.

In the rule that amended Standard 213 to permit the manufacture of

belt-positioning seats, NHTSA decided against specifying limits on seat

back loading, due to a lack of data indicating a safety problem. At the

time of that decision, the agency did not consider that a lap belt

portion of a Type II belt system could transfer crash forces to a child

from the back of a belt-positioning booster seat. Now that the agency

has considered this issue in the context of S5.4.3.2 of Standard 213,

NHTSA has decided that a limit on the mass of the booster seat back is

warranted.

Belt-positioning devices. The NPRM sought information about a

particular type of child restraining device that appears to be

proliferating. These devices are designed to be attached to a vehicle

Type II belt system to improve the fit of the system on children, and

in some cases, on small adults. The agency sought information on

whether Standard 213 should be applied to these devices, and if so,

which of the standard's requirements would be appropriate for those

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 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 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 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. SafetyBeltSafe 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. The agency will be continuing its efforts to learn more

about the restraining devices.

5. Leadtime

This rule has one effective date for add-on child restraints and

another for built-in child restraints. For add-on systems, this rule is

effective in 180 days, as proposed. No comment was received on leadtime

for add-on restraints.

For built-in systems, this rule is effective on September 1, 1996.

Ford and AAMA commented on leadtime for built-in restraints. Ford

requested a September 1, 1996 effective date. It said the proposed 180-

day leadtime would not provide enough time for it to test all its

built-in child seats to the adopted requirements and make any design

changes that may be needed. It also said the proposed leadtime would

not provide enough time to modify the labeling of its built-in

restraints, or to change the vehicle ``owners guides'' of the vehicles

equipped with built-in systems. Ford stated that changes to owners

guides are timed to precede the beginning of new model year production,

and are usually printed in

[[Page 35138]]

June or July. NHTSA has determined that a September 1, 1996 effective

date for built-in restraints gives motor vehicle manufacturers

sufficient leadtime to both 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. For the reasons

given above, there is good cause shown that the September 1996

effective date is in the public interest.

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

a. 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

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 final

regulatory evaluation for this action which discusses its potential

costs, benefits and other impacts. A copy of that evaluation has been

placed in the docket for this rulemaking action. Interested persons may

obtain copies of the evaluation by writing to the docket section at the

address provided at the beginning of this document.

To briefly summarize the evaluation, the cost per test is estimated

to be $1,337. There are approximately 47 different models of child

restraints on the market with an estimated total of 185 adjustment

positions. Since each restraint would be subject to testing with two

dummies rather than one, the incremental testing cost is one dummy per

restraint position. Total cost for all manufacturers is estimated to be

$247,345. Redesign costs have not been estimated.

The agency cannot quantify the benefits of this rulemaking.

However, NHTSA believes that benefits will accrue by virtue of upgraded

test procedures that better ensure that child restraints adequately

restrain and protect the children recommended for a restraint.

b. 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 13 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). This number does not constitute a

substantial number of small entities. Regardless of this number, NHTSA

does not believe this rule will have a significant impact on small

businesses. This rule may have an impact on the shield-type booster

seat market, in that a manufacturer may have to redesign its seat if it

cannot pass the standard's test with the new six-year-old dummy.

However, the agency does not know of any such booster at this time.

This rule increases the testing that NHTSA conducts of child

restraints, which in turn increases the certification responsibilities

of manufacturers. However, the agency does not believe such an increase

constitutes a significant economic impact on small entities, because

these businesses currently must certify their products to the dynamic

test of Standard 213. That is, the products of these manufacturers

already are subject to dynamic testing using child test dummies. The

effect of this rule on most child seats is to subject them to testing

with an additional dummy. Assuming there are shield boosters that could

not be certified as meeting Standard 213 when tested with an additional

dummy, small manufacturers producing those boosters would have to

redesign those restraint systems to meet the standard. However, those

manufacturers could decide to replace nonconforming shield boosters

with belt-positioning boosters (which use a vehicle's Type II belts

system), which are easier to certify to Standard 213's requirements

than shield boosters. NHTSA expects that all manufacturers will enter

the belt-positioning booster market. Some manufacturers might also

relabel their restraints as being suitable for a smaller weight range

of children, to avoid having their restraints tested with a particular

test dummy that the restraint cannot restrain (e.g., the 6-year-old

child dummy).

Small organizations and governmental jurisdictions might be

affected by this rule if these entities procure child restraint systems

for programs such as loaner programs. While the cost of child

restraints could increase, the agency believes the cost increase would

be minimal. Further, available information indicates that only a small

percentage of loaner programs carry booster seats, the type of child

restraint system most likely to be affected by this rule. Thus, loaner

program procurements will not be significantly affected by today's

rule.

c. 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.

d. 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.

e. 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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 571 as

set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues 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 571.213 is amended by--

a. Revising S5, the introductory paragraph of S5.1.2, S5.1.3.1(a)

and (b), S5.1.3.2, the introductory paragraph of S5.2.1.2, S5.2.2.2(b),

S5.2.3.1, S5.4.3.2, the introductory text of S5.4.3.3 and of

S5.4.3.3(c), the introductory text of S5.4.3.5, S5.4.3.5(a) and (b),

S5.5.2(f), S5.5.5(f), and S6 through S8.2.6, and

b. Adding S9, S9.1, S9.2, S9.3, S10, S10.1, S10.2, S10.2.1 and

S10.2.2, to read as follows:

[[Page 35139]]

Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.

* * * * *

S5. Requirements. (a) Each motor vehicle with a built-in child

restraint system shall meet the requirements in this section when, as

specified, tested in accordance with S6.1 and this paragraph.

(b) Each child restraint system manufactured for use in motor

vehicles shall meet the requirements in this section when, as

specified, tested in accordance with S6.1 and this paragraph. Each add-

on system shall meet the requirements at each of the restraint's seat

back angle adjustment positions and restraint belt routing positions,

when the restraint is oriented in the direction recommended by the

manufacturer (e.g., forward, rearward or laterally) pursuant to S5.6,

and tested with the test dummy specified in S7.

(c) Each child restraint system manufactured for use in aircraft

shall meet the requirements in this section and the additional

requirements in S8.

* * * * *

S5.1.2 Injury criteria. When tested in accordance with S6.1, each

child restraint system that, in accordance with S5.5.2(f), is

recommended for use by children whose masses are more than 10 kilograms

(kg) shall--

* * * * *

S5.1.3.1 * * *

(a) In the case of an add-on child restraint system, no portion of

the test dummy's head shall pass through a vertical, transverse plane

that is 810 mm forward of point Z on the standard seat assembly,

measured along the center SORL (as illustrated in figure 1B), and

neither knee pivot point shall pass through a vertical, transverse

plane that is 915 mm forward of point Z on the standard seat assembly,

measured along the center SORL.

(b) In the case of a built-in child restraint system, neither knee

pivot point shall, at any time during the dynamic test, pass through a

vertical, transverse plane that is 305 mm forward of the initial pre-

test position of the respective knee pivot point, measured along a

horizontal line that passes through the knee pivot point and is

parallel to the vertical plane that passes through the vehicle's

longitunal centerline.

S5.1.3.2 Rear-facing child restraint systems. In the case of each

rear-facing child restraint system, all portions of the test dummy's

torso shall be retained within the system and neither of the target

points on either side of the dummy's head and on the transverse axis

passing through the center of mass of the dummy's head and

perpendicular to the head's midsagittal plane, shall pass through the

transverse orthogonal planes whose intersection contains the forward-

most and top-most points on the child restraint system surfaces

(illustrated in Figure 1C).

* * * * *

S5.2.1.2 The applicability of the requirements of S5.2.1.1 to a

front-facing child restraint, and the conformance of any child

restraint other than a car bed to those requirements is determined

using the largest of the test dummies specified in S7.1 for use in

testing that restraint; provided, that the 6-year-old dummy described

in Subpart I of Part 572 of this title is not used to determine the

applicability of or compliance with S5.2.1.1. A front-facing child

restraint system is not required to comply with S5.2.1.1 if the target

point on either side of the dummy's head is below a horizontal plane

tangent to the top of--

* * * * *

S5.2.2.2 * * *

(b) Passing through any portion of the dummy, except for surfaces

which restrain the dummy when the system is tested in accordance with

S6.1.2(a)(2), so that the child restraint system shall conform to the

requirements of S5.1.2 and S5.1.3.1.

* * * * *

S5.2.3.1 Each child restraint system, other than a child harness,

which is recommended under S5.5.2(f) for children whose masses are less

than 10 kg, shall comply with S5.2.3.2.

* * * * *

S5.4.3.2 Direct restraint. Except for a child restraint system

whose mass is less than 4 kg, each belt that is part of a child

restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the

system and to attach the system to the vehicle, and each Type I and lap

portion of a Type II vehicle belt that is used to attach the system to

the vehicle shall, when tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads

on the child that result from the mass of the system, or

(a) In the case of an add-on child restraint system, from the mass

of the seat back of the standard seat assembly specified in S6.1, or

(b) In the case of a built-in child restraint system, from the mass

of any part of the vehicle into which the child restraint system is

built.

S5.4.3.3 Seating systems. Except for child restraint systems

subject to S5.4.3.4, each child restraint system that is designed for

use by a child in a seated position and that has belts designed to

restrain the child, shall, with the test dummy specified in S7

positioned in the system in accordance with S10 provide:

* * * * *

(c) In the case of each seating system recommended for children

whose masses are more than 10 kg, crotch restraint in the form of:

* * * * *

S5.4.3.5 Buckle release. Any buckle in a child restraint system

belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall:

(a) When tested in accordance with S6.2.1 prior to the dynamic test

of S6.1, not release when a force of less than 40 newtons (N) is

applied and shall release when a force of not more than 62 N is

applied;

(b) After the dynamic test of S6.1, when tested in accordance with

the appropriate sections of S6.2, release when a force of not more than

71 N is applied, provided, however, that the conformance of any child

restraint to this requirement is determined using the largest of the

test dummies specified in S7 for use in testing that restraint when the

restraint is facing forward, rearward, and/or laterally;

* * * * *

S5.5.2 * * *

(f) One of the following statements, inserting the manufacturer's

recommendations for the maximum mass and height of children who can

safely occupy the system, except that booster seats shall not be

recommended for children whose masses are less than 13.6 kg:

(1) This infant restraint is designed for use by children who weigh

________ pounds (mass ________ kg) or less and whose height is (insert

values in English and metric units); or

(2) This child restraint is designed for use only by children who

weigh between ________ and ________ pounds (insert metric values) and

whose height is (insert values in English and metric units) and who are

capable of sitting upright alone; or

(3) This child restraint is designed for use only by children who

weigh between ________ and ________ pounds (insert metric values) and

whose height is (insert values in English and metric units).

* * * * *

S5.5.5 * * *

(f) One of the following statements, inserting the manufacturer's

recommendations for the maximum mass and height of children who can

safely occupy the system, except that booster seats shall not be

recommended for children whose masses are less than 13.6 kg:

[[Page 35140]]

(1) This infant restraint is designed for use by children who weigh

________ pounds (mass ________ kg) or less and whose height is (insert

values in English and metric units); or

(2) This child restraint is designed for use only by children who

weigh between ________ and ________ pounds (insert metric values) and

whose height is (insert values in English and metric units) and who are

capable of sitting upright alone; or

(3) This child restraint is designed for use only by children who

weigh between ________ and ________ pounds (insert metric values) and

whose sitting height is (insert values in English and metric units).

* * * * *

S6. Test conditions and procedures.

S6.1 Dynamic systems test for child restraint systems.

The test conditions described in S6.1.1 apply to the dynamic

systems test. The test procedure for the dynamic systems test is

specified in S6.1.2. The test dummy specified in S7 is placed in the

test specimen (child restraint), clothed as described in S9 and

positioned according to S10.

S6.1.1 Test conditions.

(a) Test devices

(1) The test device for add-on restraint systems is a standard seat

assembly consisting of a simulated vehicle bench seat, with three

seating positions, which is described in Drawing Package SAS-100-1000

(consisting of drawings and a bill of materials) with addendum A, Seat

Base Weldment, dated July 1, 1993 (incorporated by reference; see

Sec. 571.5). The assembly is mounted on a dynamic test platform so that

the center SORL of the seat is parallel to the direction of the test

platform travel and so that movement between the base of the assembly

and the platform is prevented.

(2) The test device for built-in child restraint systems is either

the specific vehicle shell or the specific vehicle.

(i) Specific vehicle shell.

(A) The specific vehicle shell, if selected for testing, is mounted

on a dynamic test platform so that the longitudinal center line of the

shell is parallel to the direction of the test platform travel and so

that movement between the base of the shell and the platform is

prevented. Adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway

between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately

adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position. If an

adjustment position does not exist midway between the forwardmost and

rearmost position, the closest adjustment position to the rear of the

midpoint is used. Adjustable seat backs are in the manufacturer's

nominal design riding position. If such a position is not specified,

the seat back is positioned so that the longitudinal center line of the

child test dummy's neck is vertical, and if an instrumented test dummy

is used, the accelerometer surfaces in the dummy's head and thorax, as

positioned in the vehicle, are horizontal. If the vehicle seat is

equipped with adjustable head restraints, each is adjusted to its

highest adjustment position.

(B) The platform is instrumented with an accelerometer and data

processing system having a frequency response of 60 Hz channel class as

specified in Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J211

JUN80 ``Instrumentation for Impact Tests.'' The accelerometer sensitive

axis is parallel to the direction of test platform travel.

(ii) Specific vehicle. For built-in child restraint systems, an

alternate test device is the specific vehicle into which the built-in

system is fabricated. The following test conditions apply to this

alternate test device.

(A) The vehicle is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight plus its

rated cargo and luggage capacity weight, secured in the luggage area,

plus the appropriate child test dummy and, at the vehicle

manufacturer's option, an anthropomorphic test dummy which conforms to

the requirements of Subpart B or Subpart E of Part 572 of this title

for a 50th percentile adult male dummy placed in the front outboard

seating position. If the built-in child restraint system is installed

at one of the seating positions otherwise requiring the placement of a

Part 572 test dummy, then in the frontal barrier crash specified in

(c), the appropriate child test dummy shall be substituted for the Part

572 adult dummy, but only at that seating position. The fuel tank is

filled to any level from 90 to 95 percent of capacity.

(B) Adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between

the forward-most and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable

in a vehicle direction, are at the lowest position. If an adjustment

position does not exist midway between the forward-most and rearmost

positions, the closest adjustment position to the rear of the midpoint

is used.

(C) Adjustable seat backs are in the manufacturer's nominal design

riding position. If a nominal position is not specified, the seat back

is positioned so that the longitudinal center line of the child test

dummy's neck is vertical, and if an anthropomorphic test dummy is used,

the accelerometer surfaces in the test dummy's head and thorax, as

positioned in the vehicle, are horizontal. If the vehicle is equipped

with adjustable head restraints, each is adjusted to its highest

adjustment position.

(D) Movable vehicle windows and vents are, at the manufacturer's

option, placed in the fully closed position.

(E) Convertibles and open-body type vehicles have the top, if any,

in place in the closed passenger compartment configuration.

(F) Doors are fully closed and latched but not locked.

(G) All instrumentation and data reduction is in conformance with

SAE J211 JUN80.

(b) The tests are frontal barrier impact simulations of the test

platform or frontal barrier crashes of the specific vehicles as

specified in S5.1 of Sec. 571.208 and for:

(1) Test Configuration I, are at a velocity change of 48 km/h with

the acceleration of the test platform entirely within the curve shown

in Figure 2, or for the specific vehicle test with the deceleration

produced in a 48 km/h frontal barrier crash.

(2) Test Configuration II, are set at a velocity change of 32 km/h

with the acceleration of the test platform entirely within the curve

shown in Figure 3, or for the specific vehicle test, with the

deceleration produced in a 32 km/h frontal barrier crash.

(c) Attached to the seat belt anchorage points provided on the

standard seat assembly (illustrated in Figures 1A and 1B) are Type I

seat belt assemblies in the case of add-on child restraint systems

other than belt-positioning seats, or Type II seat belt assemblies in

the case of belt-positioning seats. These seat belt assemblies meet the

requirements of Standard No. 209 (Sec. 571.209) and have webbing with a

width of not more than 50 mm, and are attached to the anchorage points

without the use of retractors or reels of any kind.

(d) Performance tests under S6.1 are conducted at any ambient

temperature from 19 deg. to 26 deg. C and at any relative humidity from

10 percent to 70 percent.

(e) In the case of add-on child restraint systems, the restraint

shall meet the requirements of S5 at each of its seat back angle

adjustment positions and restraint belt routing positions, when the

restraint is oriented in the direction recommended by the manufacturer

(e.g., forward, rearward or laterally) pursuant to S5.6, and tested

with the test dummy specified in S7.

S6.1.2 Dynamic test procedure.

(a) Activate the built-in child restraint or attach the add-on

child restraint to the seat assembly as described below:

[[Page 35141]]

(1) Test configuration I. (i) In the case of each add-on child

restraint system other than a belt-positioning seat, a child harness, a

backless child restraint system with a top anchorage strap, or a

restraint designed for use by physically handicapped children, install

the add-on child restraint system at the center seating position of the

standard seat assembly in accordance with the manufacturer's

instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6.1, except that

the add-on restraint shall be secured to the standard vehicle seat

using only the standard vehicle lap belt. A child harness, a backless

child restraint system with a top anchorage strap, or a restraint

designed for use by physically handicapped children shall be installed

at the center seating position of the standard seat assembly in

accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the

system pursuant to S5.6.1. An add-on belt-positioning seat shall be

installed at either outboard seating position of the standard seat

assembly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided

with the system pursuant to S5.6.1, except that the belt-positioning

seat shall be secured to the standard vehicle seat using only the

standard vehicle lap and shoulder belt.

(ii) In the case of each built-in child restraint system, activate

the restraint in the specific vehicle shell or the specific vehicle, in

accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided in accordance

with S5.6.2.

(2) Test configuration II. (i) In the case of each add-on child

restraint system which is equipped with a fixed or movable surface

described in S5.2.2.2, or a backless child restraint system with a top

anchorage strap, install the add-on child restraint system at the

center seating position of the standard seat assembly using only the

standard seat lap belt to secure the system to the standard seat.

(ii) In the case of each built-in child restraint system which is

equipped with a fixed or movable surface described in S5.2.2.2, or a

built-in booster seat with a top anchorage strap, activate the system

in the specific vehicle shell or the specific vehicle in accordance

with the manufacturer's instructions provided in accordance with

S5.6.2.

(b) Tighten all belts used to restrain an add-on child restraint

system to the standard seat assembly and all belts used to directly

restrain the dummy to the add-on or built-in child restraint according

to the following:

(1) Tighten all Type I belt systems and any provided additional

anchorage belt (tether), that are used to attach an add-on child

restraint to the standard seat assembly to a tension of not less than

53.5 N and not more than 67 N, as measured by a load cell used on the

webbing portion of the belt.

(2) Tighten the lap portion of Type II belt systems used to attach

an add-on child restrain to the standard seat assembly to a tension of

not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N, as measured by a load cell

used on the webbing portion of the belt.

(3) Tighten the shoulder portion of Type II belt system used to

directly restrain the dummy in add-on and built-in child restraint

systems to a tension of not less than 9 N and not more than 18 N, as

measured by a load cell used on the webbing portion of the belt.

(c) Place in the child restraint any dummy specified in S7 for

testing systems for use by children of the heights and weights for

which the system is recommended in accordance with S5.6.2.

(d) Assemble, clothe, prepare and position the dummy as specified

in S7 through S10 and Part 572 of this chapter, as appropriate.

(e) If provided, shoulder (other than the shoulder portion of a

Type II vehicle belt system) and pelvic belts that directly restrain

the dummy in add-on and built-in systems shall be adjusted as follows:

Tighten the belts until a 9 N force applied (as illustrated in

figure 5) to the webbing at the top of each dummy shoulder and to the

pelvic webbing 50 mm on either side of the torso midsagittal plane

pulls the webbing 7 mm from the dummy.

(f) Accelerate the test platform to simulate frontal impact in

accordance with Test Configuration I or II, as appropriate.

(g) Determine conformance with the requirements in S5.1, as

appropriate.

S6.2 Buckle release test procedure.

The belt assembly buckles used in any child restraint system shall

be tested in accordance with S6.2.1 through S6.2.4 inclusive.

S6.2.1 Before conducting the testing specified in S6.1, place the

loaded buckle on a hard, flat, horizontal surface. Each belt end of the

buckle shall be pre-loaded in the following manner. The anchor end of

the buckle shall be loaded with a 9 N force in the direction away from

the buckle. In the case of buckles designed to secure a single latch

plate, the belt latch plate end of the buckle shall be pre-loaded with

a 9 N force in the direction away from the buckle. In the case of

buckles designed to secure two or more latch plates, the belt latch

plate ends of the buckle shall be loaded equally so that the total load

is 9 N, in the direction away from the buckle. For pushbutton-release

buckles, the release force shall be applied by a conical surface (cone

angle not exceeding 90 degrees). For pushbutton-release mechanisms with

a fixed edge (referred to in Figure 7 as ``hinged button''), the

release force shall be applied at the centerline of the button, 3 mm

away from the movable edge directly opposite the fixed edge, and in the

direction that produces maximum releasing effect. For pushbutton-

release mechanisms with no fixed edge (referred to in Figure 7 as

``floating button''), the release force shall be applied at the center

of the release mechanism in the direction that produces the maximum

releasing effect. For all other buckle release mechanisms, the force

shall be applied on the centerline of the buckle lever or finger tab in

the direction that produces the maximum releasing effect. Measure the

force required to release the buckle. Figure 7 illustrates the loading

for the different buckles and the point where the release force should

be applied, and Figure 8 illustrates the conical surface used to apply

the release force to pushbutton-release buckles.

S6.2.2 After completion of the testing specified in S6.1 and

before the buckle is unlatched, tie a self-adjusting sling to each

wrist and ankle of the test dummy in the manner illustrated in Figure

4, without disturbing the belted dummy and the child restraint system.

S6.2.3 Pull the sling tied to the dummy restrained in the child

restraint system and apply a force whose magnitude is: 50 N for a

system tested with a newborn dummy; 90 N for a system tested with a 9-

month-old dummy; 200 N for a system tested with a 3-year-old dummy; or

270 N for a system tested with a 6-year-old dummy. The force is applied

in the manner illustrated in Figure 4 and as follows:

(a) Add-on Child Restraints. For an add-on child restraint other

than a car bed, apply the specified force by pulling the sling

horizontally and parallel to the SORL of the standard seat assembly.

For a car bed, apply the force by pulling the sling vertically.

(b) Built-in Child Restraints. For a built-in child restraint other

than a car bed, apply the force by pulling the sling parallel to the

longitudinal center line of the specific vehicle shell or the specific

vehicle. In the case of a car bed, apply the force by pulling the sling

vertically.

S6.2.4 While applying the force specified in S6.2.3, and using the

device shown in Figure 8 for pushbutton-release buckles, apply the

release force in the manner and location specified in S6.2.1, for that

type of buckle. Measure the force required to release the buckle.

[[Page 35142]]

S6.3 Head impact protection--energy absorbing material test

procedure.

S6.3.1 Prepare and test specimens of the energy absorbing material

used to comply with S5.2.3 in accordance with the applicable 25 percent

compression-deflection test described in the American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D1056-73, ``Standard

Specification for Flexible Cellular Materials--Sponge or Expanded

Rubber,'' or D1564-71 ``Standard Method of Testing Flexible Cellular

Materials--Slab Urethane Foam'' or D1565-76 ``Standard Specification

for Flexible Cellular Materials--Vinyl Chloride Polymer and Copolymer

open-cell foams.''

S7 Test dummies. (Subparts referenced in this section are of part

572 of this chapter.)

S7.1 Dummy selection.

(a) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in

accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass

range that includes any children having a mass of not greater than 5

kg, or by children in a specified height range that includes any

children whose height is not greater than 650 mm, is tested with a

newborn test dummy conforming to part 572 subpart K.

(b) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in

accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass

range that includes any children having a mass greater than 5 but not

greater than 10 kg, or by children in a specified height range that

includes any children whose height is greater than 650 mm but not

greater than 850 mm, is tested with a newborn test dummy conforming to

part 572 subpart K, and a 9-month-old test dummy conforming to part 572

subpart J.

(c) Except for a booster seat, a child restraint that is

recommended by its manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either

by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having

a mass greater than 10 kg but not greater than 18 kg, or by children in

a specified height range that includes any children whose height is

greater than 850 mm but not greater than 1100 mm, is tested with a 9-

month-old test dummy conforming to part 572 subpart J, and a 3-year-old

test dummy conforming to part 572 subpart C and S7.2, provided,

however, that the 9-month-old dummy is not used to test a booster seat.

(d) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in

accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass

range that includes any children having a mass greater than 18 kg, or

by children in a specified height range that includes any children

whose height is greater than 1100 mm, is tested with a 3-year-old child

test dummy conforming to part 572 subpart C and S7.2, and a 6-year-old

child dummy conforming to part 572 subpart I.

(e) A child restraint that meets the criteria in two or more of the

preceding paragraphs in S7.1 is tested with each of the test dummies

specified in those paragraphs.

S7.2 Three-year-old dummy head. Effective September 1, 1993, this

dummy is assembled with the head assembly specified in section

572.16(a)(1) of this chapter.

S8 Requirements, test conditions, and procedures for child

restraint systems manufactured for use in aircraft.

Each child restraint system manufactured for use in both motor

vehicles and aircraft must comply with all of the applicable

requirements specified in Section S5 and with the additional

requirements specified in S8.1 and S8.2.

S8.1 Installation instructions. Each child restraint system

manufactured for use in aircraft shall be accompanied by printed

instructions in English that provide a step-by-step procedure,

including diagrams, for installing the system in aircraft passenger

seats, securing a child in the system when it is installed in aircraft,

and adjusting the system to fit the child.

S8.2 Inversion test. When tested in accordance with S8.2.1 through

S8.2.5, each child restraint system manufactured for use in aircraft

shall meet the requirements of S8.2.1 through S8.2.6. The manufacturer

may, at its option, use any seat which is a representative aircraft

passenger seat within the meaning of S4. Each system shall meet the

requirements at each of the restraint's seat back angle adjustment

positions and restraint belt routing positions, when the restraint is

oriented in the direction recommended by the manufacturer (e.g., facing

forward, rearward or laterally) pursuant to S8.1, and tested with the

test dummy specified in S7. If the manufacturer recommendations do not

include instructions for orienting the restraint in aircraft when the

restraint seat back angle is adjusted to any position, position the

restraint on the aircraft seat by following the instructions (provided

in accordance with S5.6) for orienting the restraint in motor vehicles.

S8.2.1 A standard seat assembly consisting of a representative

aircraft passenger seat shall be positioned and adjusted so that its

horizontal and vertical orientation and its seat back angle are the

same as shown in Figure 6.

S8.2.2 The child restraint system shall be attached to the

representative aircraft passenger seat using, at the manufacturer's

option, any Federal Aviation Administration approved aircraft safety

belt, according to the restraint manufacturer's instructions for

attaching the restraint to an aircraft seat. No supplementary anchorage

belts or tether straps may be attached; however, Federal Aviation

Administration approved safety belt extensions may be used.

S8.2.3 In accordance with S10, place in the child restraint any

dummy specified in S7 for testing systems for use by children of the

heights and weights for which the system is recommended in accordance

with S5.5 and S8.1.

S8.2.4 If provided, shoulder and pelvic belts that directly

restrain the dummy shall be adjusted in accordance with S6.1.2.

S8.2.5 The combination of representative aircraft passenger seat,

child restraint, and test dummy shall be rotated forward around a

horizontal axis which is contained in the median transverse vertical

plane of the seating surface portion of the aircraft seat and is

located 25 mm below the bottom of the seat frame, at a speed of 35 to

45 degrees per second, to an angle of 180 degrees. The rotation shall

be stopped when it reaches that angle and the seat shall be held in

this position for three seconds. The child restraint shall not fall out

of the aircraft safety belt nor shall the test dummy fall out of the

child restraint at any time during the rotation or the three second

period. The specified rate of rotation shall be attained in not less

than one half second and not more than one second, and the rotating

combination shall be brought to a stop in not less than one half second

and not more than one second.

S8.2.6 Repeat the procedures set forth in S8.2.1 through S8.2.4.

The combination of the representative aircraft passenger seat, child

restraint, and test dummy shall be rotated sideways around a horizontal

axis which is contained in the median longitudinal vertical plane of

the seating surface portion of the aircraft seat and is located 25 mm

below the bottom of the seat frame, at a speed of 35 to 45 degrees per

second, to an angle of 180 degrees. The rotation shall be stopped when

it reaches that angle and the seat shall be held in this position for

three seconds. The child restraint shall not fall out of the aircraft

safety belt nor shall the test dummy fall out of the

[[Page 35143]]

child restraint at any time during the rotation or the three second

period. The specified rate of rotation shall be attained in not less

than one half second and not more than one second, and the rotating

combination shall be brought to a stop in not less than one half second

and not more than one second.

S9 Dummy clothing and preparation.

S9.1 Type of clothing.

(a) Newborn dummy. When used in testing under this standard, the

dummy is unclothed.

(b) Nine-month-old dummy. When used in testing under this standard,

the dummy is clothed in terry cloth polyester and cotton size 1 long

sleeve shirt and size 1 long pants, with a total mass of 0.136 kg.

(c) Three-year-old and six-year-old dummies. When used in testing

under this standard, the dummy is clothed in thermal knit, waffle-weave

polyester and cotton underwear or equivalent, a size 4 long-sleeved

shirt (3-year-old dummy) or a size 5 long-sleeved shirt (6-year-old

dummy) having a mass of 0.090 kg, a size 4 pair of long pants having a

mass of 0.090 kg, and cut off just far enough above the knee to allow

the knee target to be visible, and size 7M sneakers (3-year-old dummy)

or size 12 \1/2\M sneakers (6-year-old dummy) with rubber toe caps,

uppers of dacron and cotton or nylon and a total mass of 0.453 kg.

S9.2 Preparing clothing. Clothing other than the shoes is

machined-washed in 71 deg. C to 82 deg. C and machine-dried at 49 deg.

C to 60 deg. C for 30 minutes.

S9.3 Preparing dummies. Before being used in testing under this

standard, dummies must be conditioned at any ambient temperature from

19 deg. C to 25.5 deg. C and at any relative humidity from 10 percent

to 70 percent for at least 4 hours.

S10 Positioning the dummy and attaching the system belts.

S10.1 Car beds.

Place the test dummy in the car bed in the supine position with its

midsagittal plane perpendicular to the center SORL of the standard seat

assembly, in the case of an add-on car bed, or perpendicular to the

longitudinal axis of the specific vehicle shell or the specific

vehicle, in the case of a built-in car bed. Position the dummy within

the car bed in accordance with the instructions for child positioning

that the bed manufacturer provided with the bed in accordance with

S5.6.

S10.2 Restraints other than car beds.

S10.2.1 Newborn dummy and nine-month-old dummy. Position the test

dummy according to the instructions for child positioning that the

manufacturer provided with the system under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while

conforming to the following:

(a) Prior to placing the 9-month-old test dummy in the child

restraint system, place the dummy in the supine position on a

horizontal surface. While placing a hand on the center of the torso to

prevent movement of the dummy torso, rotate the dummy legs upward by

lifting the feet 90 degrees. Slowly release the legs but do not return

them to the flat surface.

(b)(1) When testing forward-facing child restraint systems, holding

the 9-month-old test dummy torso upright until it contacts the system's

design seating surface, place the 9-month-old test dummy in the seated

position within the system with the mid-sagittal plane of the dummy

head--

(i) Coincident with the center SORL of the standard seating

assembly, in the case of the add-on child restraint system, or

(ii) Vertical and parallel to the longitudinal center line of the

specific vehicle shell or the specific vehicle, in the case of a built-

in child restraint system.

(b)(2) When testing rear-facing child restraint systems, place the

newborn or 9-month old dummy in the child restraint system so that the

back of the dummy torso contacts the back support surface of the

system. For a child restraint system which is equipped with a fixed or

movable surface described in S5.2.2.2 which is being tested under the

conditions of test configuration II, do not attach any of the child

restraint belts unless they are an integral part of the fixed or

movable surface. For all other child restraint systems and for a child

restraint system with a fixed or movable surface which is being tested

under the conditions of test configuration I, attach all appropriate

child restraint belts and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. Attach

all appropriate vehicle belts and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.

Position each movable surface in accordance with the instructions that

the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2. If the dummy's head

does not remain in the proper position, it shall be taped against the

front of the seat back surface of the system by means of a single

thickness of 6 mm-wide paper masking tape placed across the center of

the dummy's face.

(c)(1) When testing forward-facing child restraint systems, extend

the arms of the 9-month-old test dummy as far as possible in the upward

vertical direction. Extend the legs of the 9-month-old dummy as far as

possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet

perpendicular to the centerline of the lower legs. Using a flat square

surface with an area of 2580 square mm, apply a force of 178 N,

perpendicular to:

(i) The plane of the back of the standard seat assembly, in the

case of an add-on system, or

(ii) The back of the vehicle seat in the specific vehicle shell or

the specific vehicle, in the case of a built-in system, first against

the dummy crotch and then at the dummy thorax in the midsagittal plane

of the dummy. For a child restraint system with a fixed or movable

surface described in S5.2.2.2, which is being tested under the

conditions of test configuration II, do not attach any of the child

restraint belts unless they are an integral part of the fixed or

movable surface. For all other child restraint systems and for a child

restraint system with a fixed or movable surface which is being tested

under the conditions of test configuration I, attach all appropriate

child restraint belts and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. Attach

all appropriate vehicle belts and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.

Position each movable surface in accordance with the instructions that

the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2.

(c)(2) When testing rear-facing child restraints, position the

newborn and 9-month-old dummy arms and legs vertically upwards and then

rotate each arm and leg downward toward the dummy's lower body until

the arm contacts a surface of the child restraint system or the

standard seat assembly in the case of an add-on child restraint system,

or the specific vehicle shell or the specific vehicle, in the case of a

built-in child restraint system. Ensure that no arm is restrained from

movement in other than the downward direction, by any part of the

system or the belts used to anchor the system to the standard seat

assembly, the specific shell, or the specific vehicle.

S10.2.2 Three-year-old and six-year-old test dummy. Position the

test dummy according to the instructions for child positioning that the

restraint manufacturer provided with the system in accordance with

S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while conforming to the following:

(a) Holding the test dummy torso upright until it contacts the

system's design seating surface, place the test dummy in the seated

position within the system with the midsagittal plane of the test dummy

head--

(1) Coincident with the center SORL of the standard seating

assembly, in the case of the add-on child restraint system, or

[[Page 35144]]

(2) Vertical and parallel to the longitudinal center line of the

specific vehicle, in the case of a built-in child restraint system.

(b) Extend the arms of the test dummy as far as possible in the

upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the dummy as far as

possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet

perpendicular to the center line of the lower legs.

(c) Using a flat square surface with an area of 2580 square

millimeters, apply a force of 178 N, perpendicular to:

(1) The plane of the back of the standard seat assembly, in the

case of an add-on system, or

(2) The back of the vehicle seat in the specific vehicle shell or

the specific vehicle, in the case of a built-in system, first against

the dummy crotch and then at the dummy thorax in the midsagittal plane

of the dummy. For a child restraint system with a fixed or movable

surface described in S5.2.2.2, which is being tested under the

conditions of test configuration II, do not attach any of the child

restraint belts unless they are an integral part of the fixed or

movable surface. For all other child restraint systems and for a child

restraint system with a fixed or movable surface which is being tested

under the conditions of test configuration I, attach all appropriate

child restraint belts and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. Attach

all appropriate vehicle belts and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.

Position each movable surface in accordance with the instructions that

the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2.

* * * * *

Figure 4 to Sec. 571.213 [Amended]

3. Figure 4 at the end of Sec. 571.213 is revised to read as

follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 35145]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR06JY95.000

[[Page 35146]]

Issued on: June 26, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-16102 Filed 7-5-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C