[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 129 (Thursday, July 6, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35126-35146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16102]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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