[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30824-30836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15456]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-09; Notice 46]
RIN 2127-AF02
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration;
correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of a
July 1995 final rule that amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems to add a greater array of
sizes and weights of test dummies for use in Standard 213 compliance
tests. This is the second of two documents responding to those
petitions. An earlier document delayed the compliance date of the rule
until September 1, 1996, for manufacturers of add-on (portable) child
restraint systems.
Most of the amendments made by today's rule correct or clarify
provisions of the July 1995 rule. The only substantive changes made by
today's rule are to amend provisions in that standard to permit
manufacturers to produce belt-positioning seats with a mass of up to
4.4 kg (rather than limit the mass to 4 kg), and to permit them to use
the word ``mass'' in labeling child seats. Petitions for
reconsideration of matters relating to other issues are denied.
DATES: This rule is effective July 18, 1996. The compliance date for
the amendments made by this rule (i.e., the date on which manufacturers
must begin complying with the amendments) is September 1, 1996.
Beginning July 18, 1996, manufacturers may begin voluntarily complying
with the amendments made by this rule.
Petitions for reconsideration of this rule must be received by
August 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC, 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Dr. George
Mouchahoir, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards (telephone 202-366-
4919). For legal issues: Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of the Chief
Counsel (202-366-2992). Both can be reached at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Current requirements
III. Final Rule
IV. Petitions for Reconsideration
V. Issues
a. Mass Ranges
b. Ninety-fifth percentile child dummy
c. Weight and height should match
d. Test Principles
1. Speed Close to 30 mph
2. Representative Seat Assembly
3. Worst Case Testing
4. Testing ``New'' Restraints
e. Allowable Mass for Belt-Positioning Boosters
f. Knee Excursion
VI. Corrections
a. Metrication
b. Labeling
c. Dummy Positioning
d. Dummy Selection
VII. Compliance Date
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
a. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
c. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
d. National Environmental Policy Act
e. Paperwork Reduction Act
f. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
I. Introduction
This document is the second of two documents responding to
petitions for reconsideration of a final rule published July 6, 1995
(60 FR 35126), and corrected September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50477). It also
responds to other requests for rulemaking. The final rule amended
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint
Systems'' (49 CFR 571.213), by adding a greater array of sizes and
weights of test dummies to Standard 213 for use in compliance tests.
The rule, completing a substantial upgrade of the standard long
envisioned by the agency, also responded to the NHTSA Authorization Act
of 1991 (sections 2500-2509 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (``ISTEA'')), which directed NHTSA to initiate
rulemaking on child seat safety. The notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) for the rule was published March 16, 1994 (59 FR 12225).
On December 12, 1995 (60 FR 63651), NHTSA published the first
document responding to petitions for reconsideration of the rule. In
response to petitions from Cosco Inc. and Gerry Baby Products Company,
two manufacturers of add-on child restraint systems, NHTSA extended the
compliance date of the rule from January 3, 1996, to September 1, 1996.
The agency extended the compliance date to provide manufacturers of
add-on systems sufficient time to evaluate their products and make any
necessary changes to them.
II. 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
[[Page 30825]]
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 two different dummies for use in compliance
testing. A dummy representing a 6-month-old child is 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 more than 9 kg (weighing more than 20 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.
III. Final Rule
The final rule that is the subject of today's document amended
Standard 213 to add three dummies, representing a newborn infant, 9-
month-old and 6-year-old child, for use in the future in compliance
testing under the standard. The rule will remove the 6-month-old child
dummy currently used, since the need for it was obviated by the
addition of the new dummies.
In adopting the new dummies, the agency sought to better evaluate
the ability of child restraint systems to restrain and protect the
range of children recommended for those systems. As a result of the
rule, child restraints will have to meet the performance requirements
of the standard while tested with dummies more representative of the
children for whom the restraints are recommended. As a result, the
performance of child restraints will be more thoroughly evaluated. A
dummy representing children at the lower end of the weight ranges
recommended for a restraint will evaluate the ability of the restraint
to restrain its occupant. A dummy at the higher end will evaluate the
structural integrity of the restraint.
The rule adopted the following provisions specifying which of the
new dummies NHTSA will use in the compliance testing of child restraint
systems:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following dummy(ies)
If the range of children recommended by a is(are) used in the
child restraint's manufacturer includes compliance testing of that
any children in the following range, restraint
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birth to 5 kg (11 lb) or less............ Newborn.
More than 5 kg to 10 kg (22 lb).......... Newborn.
9-month-old
(20 lb).
More than 10 kg to 18 kg (40 lb)......... 9-month-old
(20 lb).*
3-yr-old
(33 lb).
More than 18 kg (40 lb).................. 6-yr-old
(47 lb).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This dummy is not to be used to test booster seats.
IV. Petitions for Reconsideration
NHTSA received five petitions for reconsideration of the rule. One
of these, from the Connecticut Attorney General's office, was untimely,
and will be considered as a petition for rulemaking in accordance with
Sec. 553.35 of NHTSA's regulations. In addition, Mr. Louis F. Sokol, a
metrication consultant, in a letter to the agency, pointed out minor
errors relating to the use of SI measurements, and suggested use of a
particular metric unit on child seat labels. That letter is also
addressed in today's document.
Discussion of Petitions
This section briefly discusses the issues raised by each of the
petitions, except issues relating to an extension of the compliance
date for the rule. The agency responded to those compliance date issues
in the earlier Federal Register document.
Consumers Union (``CU'') petitioned for reconsideration of several
aspects of the rule, including the mass/weight ranges and the
specifications of which dummy or dummies will be used to test
restraints in each mass/weight class. Consumers Union stated that the
rule should not ``allow manufacturers to recommend any particular
restraint system for children larger in weight than the weight for
which the system is required to be tested by the standard.'' In
addition, CU suggested changes to specific aspects of the dynamic test
procedure.
The Connecticut Attorney General's office expressed concerns
similar to CU's. This petitioner asked NHTSA to require that all tests
of child restraint systems use a test dummy ``with a weight consistent
with the maximum recommended weight for use in the car seat.'' Similar
to CU, this petitioner stated that the rule does not ``guarantee'' that
infant seats recommended for infants up to 22 lb are safe for children
who weigh up to 22 lb.
Cosco, Inc. (``Cosco''), a manufacturer of add-on child restraints,
raised several issues in its petition, the most significant of which
related to one aspect of the mass ranges. Cosco wanted the 10 kg to 18
kg (22 lb to 40 lb) category to be changed so that the upper limit is
20 kg (44 lb). Cosco stated that restraints with a 43 lb maximum
recommendation have been in the marketplace for years without evidence
of a safety problem. The bulk of Cosco's other issues related to
apparent errors or omissions in the rule.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (``Advocates'') petitioned
for reconsideration of an aspect of the mass ranges adopted by the
rule. Advocates objected to the 18 kg (40 lb) dividing line between the
third and fourth mass classes because there is no 18 kg test dummy. The
petitioner stated that, without such a dummy, child restraints cannot
be appropriately tested at 18 kg, which may be one extreme of a
recommended mass range for a child restraint. In addition, Advocates
objected to a discussion in the final rule relating to ``worst case''
testing.
Two petitioners, a child restraint manufacturer and a consortium of
built-in restraint manufacturers, petitioned about certain specific
performance requirements. Gerry Baby Products Company (``Gerry'')
requested a change to the requirement limiting the force that may be
imposed on a child by the vehicle lap belt used to anchor a child seat
to the vehicle (S5.4.3.2). The rule prohibited any loads except those
resulting from a child seat with a mass less than 4 kg. Gerry
petitioned to raise the limit from 4 kg to 4.4 kg. The American
Automobile Manufacturers Association (``AAMA'') petitioned to increase
the knee excursion limit of 305 mm for built-in restraints (S5.1.3.1
(b)). AAMA stated that an allowance of 305 mm is too restrictive with
respect to testing a booster seat with the 6-year-old dummy, and that
until such time as an appropriate knee excursion limit can be developed
for use with the dummy, no knee excursion limit should be in force.
[[Page 30826]]
V. Issues
Most of the amendments made by today's rule correct or clarify
provisions of the July 1995 rule. The only substantive changes made by
today's rule are to amend S5.4.3.2 to permit manufacturers to produce
belt-positioning seats with a mass of up to 4.4 kg (rather than limit
the mass to 4 kg), and to permit them to use the word ``mass'' in
labeling child seats. Petitions for reconsideration of matters relating
to other issues are denied.
a. Mass Ranges
Consumers Union (CU) petitioned for reconsideration of the
provisions of the rule that specify which child test dummies are used
to evaluate the performance of a particular child restraint system. CU
stated that the standard should specify testing with ``a dummy
representing the maximum weight of a child for whom the safety seat is
designed.'' CU further stated that the standard should not permit
manufacturers to recommend their restraints for any child weighing more
than the heaviest test dummy used in the compliance testing of the
product.
The main provisions with which CU is concerned are those that
specify how to test a rear-facing seat and a convertible seat. The
provisions for testing rear-facing seats specify that, if the range of
children recommended by a child restraint's manufacturer includes any
children of masses in a range of 5 kg to 10 kg (approximately 11 to 22
lb), the restraint is tested with both the newborn and 9-month-old (20
lb) dummies (S7.1(b)). CU believed that it is unsafe to permit
manufacturers to label a rear-facing restraint as suitable for infants
with masses up to 10 kg (22 lb), when the heaviest dummy used in
testing the restraint weighs only 20 lb. CU described tests it
conducted using the 20 lb 9-month-old dummy in infant seats that were
generally labeled for children up to 20 lb.
Two popular models, certified by the manufacturers as safe based
on tests with a smaller, lighter six-month-old [17.5 pound] dummy,
and labeled for use by children up to 20 pounds, performed poorly
when tested with the 20-pound dummy. In one case, the Century 590,
the product barely passed our tests when tested with a 17.5-pound
dummy, but failed dramatically when tested with a 20-pound dummy. In
the second case, involving the Evenflo On My Way 206, the product
failed in the same manner mentioned in NHTSA's press release of July
25, 1995 (i.e., a crack in the shell) when tested with a 17.5 dummy,
but failed in a dramatic fashion when tested with a 20-pound dummy.
CU was thus concerned that, under the July 1995 rule, a rear-facing
child restraint could meet Standard 213's requirements when tested with
the 9-month-old (20 lb) dummy, but may or may not perform adequately
when restraining a 22 lb child, even though the restraint is
recommended for children weighing up to 22 lb.
CU had similar concerns about convertible and toddler restraint
systems. (Convertible restraints are adjustable so that in one
adjustment position they can be used rear-facing by an infant or a very
young child in the same manner as an infant-only seat and in another
position, by a toddler who is forward-facing, i.e., restrained facing
in the normal direction of travel of the vehicle.) The rule specifies
that a restraint recommended for use by children of masses in a range
from 10 kg to 18 kg (22 to 40 lb) is tested with the 9-month-old 1
and 3-year old (33 lb) dummies (S7.1(c)). CU stated that these
restraints should not be permitted to be recommended for children
weighing more than 33 lb:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The 9-month-old dummy is not used to test booster
seats.
Because there is no standard 40-pound dummy available, we could
test only with the 33-pound dummy. Hence, neither we nor the public
nor NHTSA knows how these seats will perform with a child weighing
between 33 and 40 pounds. In our view, this is an unacceptable
situation for parents who are led by product labeling to believe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that these seats will provide the necessary restraint in a crash.
After carefully reviewing CU's petition, NHTSA has determined that
safety is best served by denying it.
The basis for the agency's decision to retain the 10 kg (22 lb)
dividing line between the second and third weight ranges is grounded in
the anatomical characteristics of infants and the corresponding real-
world need to keep infants in rear-facing child restraints up through
the end of their first year. As discussed below, adoption of CU's
request could have the unintended and undesired effect of encouraging
the premature transition of infants to front facing child restraints.
Infants have unique skeletal and muscular attributes. An article
2 by F. von Wimmersperg and Waldemar J. Czernakowski, ``The Safe
Deceleration of Infants in Car Crashes,'' describes the biomechanical
characteristics of infants, for consideration in developing adequate
infant restraining devices:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 This article was part of a petition for rulemaking
submitted to NHTSA in 1992 by Century Products Co. (docket PRM-213-
22) concerning a requirement then in Standard 213 that infant seats
not change adjustment position in dynamic testing (S5.1.1). See
docket 74-09, notice 36.
To facilitate the passage of the fetus through the birth canal,
the mother and the fetus can deform during the slow, almost static
loads of the birth process. This ability of the fetus to deform
safely under slow loads is mortgaged by a high vulnerability to
local, blunt dynamic loads by impact on the head or chest, or
violent movements of the head by shaking or otherwise. * * * The
infant is not just a scaled down older child. The anatomical
differences are of such magnitude that engineering solutions
adequate to decelerate older children can be expected to injure the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
infant.
``The Safe Deceleration of Infants in Car Crashes,'' Wimmersperg and
Czernakowski, Proceedings of 20th STAPP Car Crash Conference, October
1976, pp. 545-585.
In addition to the undeveloped skeletal and muscular system of the
infant, the size of the child's head and the stresses it produces on
the neck make the infant extremely vulnerable to injury in frontal
crashes. The head of a newborn represents one-third of the infant's
total body weight. Unless properly supported, the head can produce a
massive amount of force pulling on the undeveloped muscle system of an
infant's neck in a crash.
Because of these anatomical features, child passenger safety
experts have strongly recommended that infants should be positioned
rear-facing in a vehicle. Infant restraints are designed to face the
child rearward so that in a frontal 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 the head rests against the seating
surface. In this way, severe neck injuries are prevented. Von
Wimmersperg and Czernakowski state that ``Injuries of the (infant's)
neck and of the brain can be prevented only when the head mass and the
torso mass decelerate gradually and simultaneously, with a minimum of
relative movement.'' 3 Kathleen Weber of the Child Passenger
Protection Research Program of the University of Michigan Medical
School (UM-CPP) found that stretching forces acting on the neck can be
reduced by half when forward-facing child dummies are turned to face
the rear. She found that, in the forward-facing position, the neck of a
six-month-old child dummy was subjected to about 1200 N of force, or
over fifty times the weight of the head pulling on the neck. In tests
in which
[[Page 30827]]
the dummy was restrained rear-facing, measured neck forces were less
than half of the forward-facing values. ``Rear-Facing Restraint for
Small Child Passengers,'' UMTRI Research Review, April-June 1995. Ms.
Weber determined from her research that ``children are much less prone
to serious neck injury in a rear-facing than a forward-facing child
restraint, and that children should therefore be kept facing the rear
of the vehicle until they are at least one-year old.'' Id., emphasis
added. One-year is believed to be the earliest age at which a child
should be turned to face forward because the infant's bones and
muscular system take about eight to 12 months to ossify and develop to
the point where it has outgrown the most serious vulnerability to
local, blunt impacts on the head or chest, or violent movements of the
head. Wimmersperg and Czernakowski, id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 In their article, these authors discuss a new type of
infant restraint, a swinging bed, which they believe transfers the
load from a frontal impact over a large area of the infant and
reduces the duration of maximal impact for each area element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While safety advocates recommend infants should be rear-facing
until at least one year old, Standard 213's testing provisions
inadvertently prevented manufacturers from recommending an upper weight
limit that would enable children to stay rear-facing until one year of
age. As noted in section II above, the standard specified that the 6-
month-old child dummy is used for testing a child restraint system that
is recommended by its manufacturer for use by children in a weight
range that includes children weighing 20 lb or less. The 3-year-old
child dummy is used for testing a child restraint system recommended
for children weighing more than 20 lb. (The 20 lb weight corresponds to
the average nine-month-old child.) Recommending any rear-facing
restraint for the average 12-month-old (whose average weight is 22 lb)
would necessitate recommending the restraint for children weighing in
excess of 20 lb. A rear-facing restraint recommended for children
weighing more than 20 lb had to be certified as meeting Standard 213
when tested with the 33 lb 3-year-old dummy.
Testing a rear-facing child restraint with the 3-year-old dummy was
problematic. In an April 22, 1992 interpretation letter to Century
Products, NHTSA determined that if a convertible restraint could not
physically permit the 3-year-old dummy to be positioned for the dynamic
test, the restraint could not be recommended by its manufacturer for
use in the rear-facing position by children weighing more than 20
pounds. Moreover, since a rear-facing restraint recommended for a child
weighing more than 20 lb must meet all performance criteria when tested
with the 3-year-old dummy, most manufacturers will not certify their
infant restraints to Standard 213. Rear-facing restraints typically
have a seat back that is too low to enable the restraint to meet the
standard's occupant head excursion requirement (S5.1.3.2) when tested
with the 3-year-old dummy.
To enable manufacturers to recommend rear-facing restraints for
infants up to 12 months in age without making it necessary to test
those restraints with the 33 lb 3-year-old dummy, the July 1995 rule
divided the weight ranges in such a manner that the 3-year-old dummy is
used to test a restraint only if the restraint is recommended for use
by a child weighing more than 22 lb. In the proposed rule, NHTSA
proposed a dividing line of 20 lb, but raised it to 22 lb in the final
rule in response to commenters who believed that the change would
encourage manufacturers to recommend positioning an infant in a rear-
facing position at least until the child is one year old. 60 FR at
35131, 35132. NHTSA concluded that safety would be served by better
ensuring that infants ride rear-facing until their skeletal and
muscular structure can develop to where they can more safely withstand
crash forces in a forward-facing position.
While based on a desire to promote safety, CU's request to prohibit
manufacturers from specifying their products for use by children
exceeding the weight of the test dummy would have the opposite effect.
Granting that request would not comport with real world needs of
infants. As noted above, taking action that would have the effect of
prohibiting rear-facing restraints from being recommended for children
weighing more than 20 lb does not accord with safety data that indicate
infants are safer riding rear-facing until at least 12 months old
(i.e., until they reach 22 lb). It perpetuates a current ``impediment''
(Weber, id.) in Standard 213 that resulted in less than optimal, and
possibly misleading, weight recommendations. Because 20 pounds is the
weight of an average nine-month-old child, CU's approach would continue
to limit weight recommendations in such a way as to possibly mislead
consumers into thinking that an infant must be switched to face forward
when the baby is only nine months old. This is likely to be before the
infant's bones and muscular system have developed sufficiently to make
seating the child in a forward facing position appropriate. Thus, CU's
approach could have the unintended effect of detracting from the real-
world safety needs of older infants (ages nine- to 12-months).
NHTSA notes that the potential adverse effect of CU's suggestion
that the weights of the dummies used for Standard 213 compliance tests
should determine the limits of the weight recommendations made by the
manufacturers would have been even greater under Standard 213 prior to
the July 1995 amendment. Under CU's approach and under that version of
the Standard, infant restraint manufacturers would not have been
allowed to recommend their restraints for children weighing more than
the 17.5 lb (six-month-old) dummy. That limit would have pushed infants
out of rear facing infant seats and into forward facing child
restraints even more prematurely than under the July 1995 amendment.
The agency recognizes that, even with the new test dummies
incorporated into Standard 213, it may be possible to gain still more
safety benefits from making further changes to the standard. The more
dummies that were added to the standard, the more likely it would be
that there would be dummies that coincided more exactly with the lower
and upper limits of the range of recommended weight and sizes of
children for a particular child restraint.
A perfect standard might be one that incorporated test dummies
representative of all children for whom a child restraint is
recommended, including all children at the extremes of the recommended
weight ranges. A perfect standard might be one that specified testing
with ``a dummy representing the maximum weight of a child for whom the
safety seat is designed,'' as CU suggested in its petition, assuming
that dummies representing children of all types exist, and that the
added costs and burdens of such testing could be justified by safety
benefits. However, such dummies do not exist.
In addition, the agency believes such an approach is unnecessarily
restrictive, given that there has been no showing that the wider array
of dummies incorporated into Standard 213 by the July 1995 rule are
insufficient surrogates for the children for whom the restraints are
recommended. There is no question that Standard 213 could possibly more
extensively evaluate a restraint's performance if it incorporated more
test dummies representing more of the children for whom the restraint
is designed. In that regard, NHTSA notes that it is considering
incorporating a 12-month-old (22 lb) child test dummy into Standard 213
compliance testing, to make the evaluation of infant seats even more
extensive. The agency is currently evaluating the 12-month-old CRABI
dummy. However, the agency does not
[[Page 30828]]
believe that there is a safety problem that warrants prohibiting
manufacturers from recommending infant seats for children up to a mass
of 10 kg (22 lb) in the absence of such a dummy. NHTSA notes further
that the test dummy that CU used to test infant seats, resulting in
``not acceptable'' performance ratings, was the 20 lb nine-month-old
adopted by the July 1995 rule. Thus, CU's testing of infant seats was
not more thorough than that which will be required by the July 1995
rule. After September 1, 1996, NHTSA will evaluate all infant seats
using the same general methodology that CU used in its tests. Seats
whose performance was found by CU to be ``not acceptable'' will need to
be improved, to ensure that Standard 213's requirements will be met
when NHTSA conducts its compliance tests.
CU's belief that the upper end of the recommended weight ranges for
users of infant restraints should be limited to 20 lb is based on its
concern that the restraint may fail when restraining a heavier child.
NHTSA notes that there is no information showing that failures will
occur above 20 lb, or the nature and magnitude of such failures. While
NHTSA agrees that child restraints should be tested with a test dummy
representative of the children for whom the restraint is recommended,
the agency does not agree that the nine-month-old dummy inadequately
demonstrates the suitability of a restraint for children weighing 20 to
22 lb.
In contrast to CU's supposition that infant restraints could fail
when restraining children weighing 20 to 22 lb, there is a demonstrable
need, discussed above, to keep infants rear-facing longer. Even if some
restraints were to fail in some degree when restraining a child
weighing 20 to 22 pounds, the safety impact of these failures--to a
limited portion of the infant population--must be weighed against the
impact of forcing all children to make a premature shift from the safer
rear-facing position to forward-facing. On balance, the agency believes
there is a net safety benefit from keeping infants rear-facing longer.
Accordingly, NHTSA is denying CU's request that the agency prohibit
infant restraint manufacturers from recommending their restraints for
children weighing more than 20 lb.
For related reasons, the agency is also denying CU's suggestion
that convertible and toddler restraints should not be permitted to be
recommended for children weighing more than 33 lb. CU's approach would
have the effect of forcing toddlers out of child restraints specially
designed for young children (typically 20 to 40 lb) and into restraints
that may not be appropriate for them, i.e., booster seats or the
vehicle's belt systems. It is hypothetically possible that a restraint
that passes the Standard 213 criteria when tested with a 33-lb dummy
could fail when restraining a child weighing 33 to 40 lb. However, on
balance, that possibility of such a failure is outweighed by the safety
risk of forcing children into restraints that might not be appropriate
for them.
It is stressed that, even though Federal motor vehicle safety
standards are minimum requirements, manufacturers of motor vehicles and
child restraint systems generally aim at overdesigning their products
to provide for higher performance to account for unforeseen
uncertainties. Further, child restraints that are currently recommended
for use up to 50 pounds are tested with just a three year (33 lb)
dummy. More importantly, there are no data indicating a safety problem
with these restraints when used to restrain children weighing 34 to 50
lb. This rule is a substantial improvement to current testing
requirements in Standard 213. Prior to the amendment, only the 33 lb
dummy was used to test restraints recommended for children from 20 to
50 lb. Under the amendment, the 33 lb dummy would be used to test
restraints recommended for children weighing 22 to 40 lb, a much
narrower range of weights.
Since the agency is denying the parts of CU's petition relating to
the mass ranges, it is also denying the petition for rulemaking from
the Attorney General's Office for Connecticut. This petitioner asked
NHTSA to require ``that all tests for child restraint systems use a
test dummy with a weight consistent with the maximum recommended weight
for use in the car seat.'' The petition raised issues identical to
those of CU. For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA has not found a
reasonable possibility that the order requested by Connecticut will be
issued at the conclusion of the appropriate proceeding. Accordingly,
NHTSA denies the rulemaking petition.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (``Advocates'') objected to
the agency's drawing the line between the third and fourth mass classes
using the 18 kg (40 lb) limit because there is no 18 kg test dummy. The
petitioner believed that, without such a dummy, child restraints cannot
be adequately tested at 18 kg, which may be one extreme of a
recommended mass range. Advocates preferred the mass classes proposed
by the NPRM. The NPRM proposed that restraints recommended for children
having a mass from 4 kg to not more than 9 kg (weights of 9 to 20 lb)
would be tested with the newborn and 9-month-old dummies. Restraints
recommended for children with masses from 9 to not more than 13.5 kg
(20 to 30 lb) were to be tested with the 9-month-old and 3-year-old
dummies, and those recommended for children with masses greater than
13.5 kg were to be tested with the 3-year and 6-year-old dummies.
NHTSA is denying Advocates' request to return to the mass
categories of the NPRM. As explained in the final rule, Cosco pointed
out in its comment that the proposed mass classes could cause problems
for convertible restraints. The agency quoted a comment from Cosco,
which stated that:
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 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 concurred with Cosco's comment that convertible child
restraints should not be tested with the six-year-old, 21.5 kg (47.3
lb) dummy (60 FR at 35132). Convertible restraints are typically
recommended for children from newborn to 18 kg (40 lb). The six-year-
old dummy is not representative of a child for whom the restraint is
recommended. Further, according to Cosco, convertible restraints would
have difficulty in meeting Standard 213's requirements when tested with
the 6-year-old dummy. If the NPRM's mass ranges were adopted,
manufacturers of convertible restraints would likely restrict use of
their restraints to children with masses of less than 13.5 kg (30 lb),
to avoid testing with the 6-year-old dummy. Since convertible
restraints are generally considered effective at restraining children
up to 18 kg (40 lb), such a restriction could likely result in parents
moving their 30 lb toddlers into a booster seat or a vehicle belt
system before booster seats or seat belts should be used by the younger
child, assuming a restraint system is used at all after the convertible
child restraint.
NHTSA recommends that children should be kept in a convertible
restraint for as long as they will fit such a
[[Page 30829]]
restraint, usually until they reach about 40 lb or four years. A
convertible seat, which has shoulder straps, provides greater
protection for children less than 40 lb than a booster seat, especially
in rollover and other non-frontal crashes. See NHTSA's ``Child
Passenger Safety Resource Manual,'' March 1992. A convertible seat may
provide greater protection than a vehicle's belt system, which may not
properly fit a young child. To be used correctly, the lap belt must be
snug across the child's hips and must not ride up across the stomach,
and the shoulder belt must not cross the face or the front of the neck.
As a result of Advocate's approach, young children could be moved out
of convertible restraints into a booster seat or a vehicle belt system
too early (e.g., at 30 lb), which could have an overall negative safety
impact.
Given the above, Advocates has not provided sufficient reason for
amending the mass ranges to return to those proposed in the NPRM. While
under ideal circumstances, it might be desirable to have a 40 lb test
dummy, such a dummy is unavailable. NHTSA has determined that, on
balance, safety is better served with the mass ranges of the final
rule, since it ensures the availability of convertible seats for
toddlers in the 13.5 to 18 kg (30 to 40 lb) range.
Cosco wanted the 10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb) category to be
changed so that its upper limit is 20 kg (44 lb), to avoid subjecting
convertible restraints to tests with the 47 lb 6-year-old child dummy.
Cosco said that convertible restraints recommended for use by children
up to 43 lb have been in the marketplace for years, without evidence of
a safety problem. Cosco stated that raising the limit to 20 kg would be
consistent with the recommendations of ``many passenger safety
advocates'' that consumers should be encouraged to keep children in
convertible restraints for as long as possible. Cosco argued that the
rule is inconsistent in that under it manufacturers may recommend a
convertible restraint for children of heights up to 1100 mm, which is
the 95th percentile for children in the 3.5- to 4.5-year age group, and
the restraint will not be tested with the 6-year-old dummy, yet
manufacturers that recommend a restraint for children weighing up to
the 95th-percentile child (43.2 lb), subject their restraints to
testing with the 6-year-old dummy.
NHTSA is denying Cosco's request to increase the upper limit to 20
kg (44 lb). The agency believes that a restraint that is recommended
for use by children with a mass of up to 20 kg (44 lb) should be tested
with the 6-year-old (47 lb) dummy, because the dummy is sufficiently
representative of children at the upper end of the recommended range of
users. NHTSA recognizes that, as a result of this decision,
manufacturers, such as Cosco, will likely revise their recommendations
downward, such that, convertible restraints will not be recommended for
children with a mass of more than 18 kg (40 lb). The issue of the
relative safety of placing children with a mass more than 18 kg (40 lb)
in convertible restraints as opposed to booster seats or vehicle belt
systems is not nearly so easily resolved as is the issue of whether to
place the child under 18 kg in a convertible restraint or the issue of
whether to place a child less than one year old in a rear-facing or a
forward-facing restraint. NHTSA anticipates that manufacturers will be
able to develop designs that would enable a convertible restraint to
meet Standard 213's performance requirements when tested with the 6-
year-old dummy, if such a restraint meets market demands. However,
until a complying design is developed, the agency believes that a
restraint that is recommended for a child with a mass of 18 to 20 kg
(weight of 40 to 44 lb) should be tested with the 6-year-old (47-lb)
dummy, to ensure that the restraint can maintain its structural
integrity and properly retain a child in the upper recommended weight
range.
The agency does not agree with Cosco's comment that Standard 213 is
inconsistent in that it permits manufacturers to recommend a
convertible restraint for a child as tall as a 95th-percentile three-
year-old (height 1100 mm) without subjecting the seat to testing with
the 6-year-old dummy. The agency did not intend to imply that
manufacturers should label their restraints as suitable for a child in
the 95th-percentile for height. The rule was intended to subject a
child restraint to testing with an additional (larger) dummy if the
manufacturer's recommended child height exceeds the height of the 95th
percentile child. For example, a child restraint is to be tested with
the 6-year-old dummy if its manufacturer recommended it for children
taller than the 95th-percentile 3-year-old. The rule enabled NHTSA to
use 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. 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 than the masses expressly recommended
by the manufacturer for the restraint. The rule used the 95th-
percentile values to give manufacturers wide latitude in recommending
the reasonable height ranges they think are appropriate for their
restraints. 60 FR at 35134.
The agency does not believe the same wide latitude should be
provided with regard to the mass recommendations. A dummy representing
a 50th-percentile three-year-old child (33 lb), does not provide a full
evaluation of the performance of a restraint when restraining a child
of a mass of a 95th-percentile three-year-old (weighing 44 lb). NHTSA
believes that if a manufacturer recommends its restraint for a child of
a mass of a 95th-percentile three-year-old, the six-year-old child
dummy (weighing 47 lb) better assesses the structural soundness of the
seat and its ability to restrain children at the upper recommended mass
range.
b. Ninety-fifth Percentile Child Dummy
CU raised another issue about the adequacy of the test dummy used
to evaluate the performance of a rear-facing seat. In its petition, CU
recognized that ``most child development and safety experts advise that
infants should ride in a rear-facing position up to the age of about
one year.'' CU believed that, in the case where a seat is recommended
for a particular age of child (i.e., infants up to the age of one
year), the dummy used to test the restraint should be one representing
``an above-average-sized'' child, i.e., a 95th-percentile one-year-old
male child (weighing 26 lb), rather than a 50th percentile child. CU
argued that by definition, half the children of a particular age weigh
more than the median weight for that age. CU believed an above-average-
sized dummy is needed to ensure that results apply to most children in
the user population.
The agency is denying this request. As far as NHTSA is aware,
manufacturers recommend their restraints for children based on the
child's weight and height, as required by Standard 213's labeling
provisions, rather than for a particular age of child (e.g., infants up
to the age of one year). Thus, it does not appear the situation
addressed by CU raises a safety problem.
Further, assuming there are restraints that are recommended for
infants up to the age of one year, the agency does not
[[Page 30830]]
entirely agree with CU. The agency agrees with the implication, raised
in CU's petition, that in an ideal world, dummies would exist
representing every size of child from birth to 50 lb, in each age and
weight group. If such dummies existed, a most complete evaluation of a
child restraint might be (barring cost implications) to test all child
restraints with all dummies representative of any child for whom the
restraint is recommended. However, such dummies do not exist. While a
12-month-old dummy may have potential advantages over the nine-month-
old in testing rear-facing restraints, the 12-month-old dummy is not
available at this time. Rulemaking requiring rear-facing restraints to
be tested with the nine-month-old should not be suspended pending
assessment of the suitability and availability of the 12-month-old
child dummy as a test device.
NHTSA also does not agree that a dummy representing a 95th-
percentile one-year-old male child is preferable over one representing
a 50th-percentile child. The latter dummy is more representative of the
children for whom the restraint is recommended, and thus gives a better
representation of the overall performance of the restraint. Also, it
appears that CU is making its determination of ``adequate protection''
only in terms of whether a restraint is capable of maintaining its
structural integrity in the dynamic test. The agency agrees that the
structural integrity of a restraint is better evaluated using a larger
dummy than a smaller one. However, the ability of the restraint to
contain an occupant is more effectively evaluated using a smaller dummy
than a larger one. Using a dummy representing a 95th-percentile dummy
could thus result in trade-offs between measuring the structural
integrity of a restraint and the potential for ejection.
c. Weight and Height Should Match
CU said that it observed inconsistencies in the height and weight
limits specified on the labels for many safety seats. In particular, CU
believed manufacturers are not ensuring that their height
recommendations match the weight recommendations. CU said it noticed
that some infant seats are labeled for use by infants weighing up to 20
lb and up to 26 inches in height. CU states:
Twenty pounds is the 50th-percentile weight of a nine-month-old,
while 26 inches is the 50th-percentile height of a six-month-old.
Since children may exceed the height limit in this example before
they reach the weight limit, parents who rely on the weight limit
may use the product in a manner contrary to labeled instructions.
The petitioner suggested that NHTSA require manufacturers to make
recommendations for maximum height and weight that match both the
height and weight of test dummies used in the tests on which the seat's
certification was based.
To the extent that CU is requesting that manufacturers should be
prohibited from labeling their seats for use by children with weights
exceeding the weight of the test dummy used to test the seat, this
issue was addressed under section a, above, and will not be repeated
here. To the extent that the petitioner requests that NHTSA adopt a
provision in Standard 213 that requires the height and weight
recommendations to ``match,'' NHTSA denies this request. The agency has
not observed the labeling practices reported by CU. To the extent such
practices have occurred, NHTSA does not believe they are widespread, or
in need of the requirement suggested by CU. However, the agency will
continue to monitor labeling practices.
d. Test Principles
The effect of specifying the 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. CU,
Advocates and Cosco had questions about the agency's method of testing
child restraints to the standard's dynamic performance requirements.
1. Speed Close to 30 MPH
CU raised an issue about the test speeds used to test add-on child
restraints. Under Standard 213, add-on systems are compliance tested in
sled tests that simulate frontal barrier impacts. Standard 213
specifies that the sled test for add-on child restraint systems is at a
velocity change of 48 km/h (30 mph) ``with the acceleration of the test
platform entirely within the curve shown in Figure 2'' of the standard.
S6.1.1(b)(1).4 In its petition for reconsideration, CU said that,
based on its review of NHTSA compliance reports, NHTSA routinely
conducts the compliance test at speeds in a range from 27.6 mph to 28.7
mph. * * * (NHTSA's) compliance procedures, as spelled out in its
Laboratory Procedure For Child Restraint System Testing (April 1981),
permit impact speeds ranging from 27 mph to 30 mph. Hence, the current
compliance program is significantly less demanding than the standard it
professes to enforce. * * * Throughout our testing, we specified 30 mph
as the target impact speed, and the lab was able to control the speed
of the test sleds within .3 m.p.h. Based on our experience,
therefore, we recommend that the certification and compliance
procedures specify a test speed ranging from 29.7 to 30.3 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The 48 km/h test is specified for ``Test Configuration I,''
which all applies to all child restraints. ``Test Configuration II''
is an additional 32 km/h (20 mph) misuse test for certain
restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CU is correct that NHTSA's Laboratory Procedure for Standard 213
compliance tests specifies that add-on restraints are tested at a
velocity change of 27 to 30 mph. Test speeds are permitted to fall
below 30 mph primarily because of the limit, also specified in Standard
213 as a dynamic test condition, that ``the acceleration of the test
platform (must be) entirely within the curve shown in Figure 2'' of the
standard. The velocity at which the sled test is conducted controls
whether the acceleration of the sled is within the curve depicted in
Figure 2. In order to ensure that no portion of the acceleration curve
is outside of the curve shown in Figure 2, NHTSA must adjust the
velocity downward. Similarly, the test speed is carefully monitored,
and adjusted slightly downward, to ensure that 30 mph is not exceeded.
Contrary to CU's view, the agency believes it must ``err'' on the side
of slightly reducing the test speeds to preserve the integrity of the
compliance test. The agency must ensure that its compliance test data
can withstand legal challenge. Exceeding the test conditions subjects
the agency to claims that NHTSA conducted a more demanding test than
that required in the standard. Thus, exceeding the test conditions at
best would complicate enforcement efforts; worse, it could undermine
the validity of the test. For these reasons, NHTSA concludes that,
given the conditions in Standard 213 for the dynamic sled test, its
test procedures should not be changed at this time.
NHTSA is, however, undertaking an effort to evaluate Standard 213's
test procedures and conditions, and will consider whether the provision
limiting the acceleration of the test platform to the curve of Figure 2
should be revised. Such an evaluation could result in an upward
adjustment of the test velocities specified in the laboratory
procedures. In the meantime, NHTSA stresses that Standard 213 specifies
a velocity change of 30 mph that manufacturers should achieve, at a
minimum, when designing and manufacturing child restraint systems.
[[Page 30831]]
2. Representative Seat Assembly
NHTSA's compliance procedures specify that the test device for
testing add-on child restraints is a ``standard seat assembly
consisting of a simulated vehicle bench seat.'' (S6.1.1(a)(1), July
1995 rule.) CU stated that the seat assembly is of a design
representative of those used in vehicles of the early 1970's, and is
not representative of current vehicle seat designs. While acknowledging
``We (CU) have no data demonstrating what differences in test results
or actual use performance this difference might have,'' CU believed the
assembly should be updated.
NHTSA agrees that the standard seat assembly should be
representative of current vehicle seats, particularly if features of
the assembly significantly affect the outcome of compliance tests
conducted on it. Modifying the standard seat assembly could also be
desirable for other reasons, such as possible cost reductions due to
not having to change the flexible pin in the seat hinges of the
standard seat assembly after each test. The agency is reviewing these
issues in an on-going feasibility study at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and
Test Center. The results will help NHTSA decide whether it needs to
upgrade the seat assembly.
3. Worst Case Testing
Advocates objected to the agency's discussion of ``worst case''
testing in the final rule (60 FR at 35133). The discussion responded to
some commenters who generally believed that adopting the new dummies
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 believed there is no question
that the restraints will pass the Standard 213 performance criteria
using the dummies. The agency disagreed that no useful purpose is
served by subjecting child restraints to tests with the array of
dummies. NHTSA stated that, 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.
The agency further stated:
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.5 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. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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). (Footnote 3 in text.)
Advocates believed that this discussion meant that ``NHTSA has
decided to permit manufacturers to avoid testing child restraints with
all applicable test dummies.'' Advocates requested that NHTSA ``rescind
permitting certification testing based on 'worst case' tests conducted
only with the largest test dummy for the specified weight range.''
NHTSA believes this comment reflects a misunderstanding of the
compliance test procedures set forth in the FMVSSs. The July 1995 rule,
which adopted the new test dummies into Standard 213, enabled NHTSA to
test child restraints using the new dummies. As a result of the rule,
manufacturers must ensure that their restraints will meet the
requirements of Standard 213 when tested in the manner specified in the
standard. The rule did not require manufacturers to use the new test
dummies. None of the safety standards require manufacturers to test in
a particular manner; manufacturers are not required to conduct any
testing whatsoever before certifying that their products comply with
Standard 213. If manufacturers choose to conduct testing in accordance
with the compliance test procedures, they are free to simulate any or
all parts of the test procedures.
Thus, NHTSA's statements about worst case testing did not affect
any responsibilities of manufacturers to test and certify their
products. It did not ``permit'' manufacturers to certify their
restraints using only the heavier of two test dummies; there never was
a requirement that both dummies be used. Instead, the statement bore on
whether the rule necessarily increased testing costs for manufacturers.
NHTSA sought to explain that a manufacturer may choose to use only one
of two test dummies to test its restraint, provided that the
manufacturer exercises ``due care'' in making its certifications, as
provided in section 30115 of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (formerly the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). Whether a manufacturer
has exercised due care in using only one of two dummies is an issue
that bears on NHTSA's consideration of the appropriateness of a civil
penalty for a noncompliance. A manufacturer that can show that it
exercised due care in making its certification would still be subject
to the statutory obligation to recall and remedy its restraints that do
not conform to the requirements of Standard 213. This same obligation
would apply even if the manufacturer had conducted full compliance
testing and used all the dummies specified for a given mass/weight
range.
4. Testing ``New'' Restraints
Cosco objected to an amendment concerning the condition of the
child restraints that NHTSA will obtain for compliance testing. At one
time, Standard 213 specified in its test procedure that the compliance
test is conducted by, first, attaching a ``new'' child restraint on the
standard seat assembly used to test child restraints. In amending this
provision, NHTSA removed the reference to a ``new'' seat, and revised
it to simply describe the child restraint test specimen as ``the''
restraint. Cosco was alarmed by this change, believing that it allowed
NHTSA to conduct compliance testing with ``used seats, in any condition
of wear, possibly with missing or damaged components,'' or with seats
that have been in accidents.
The amendment that is the cause of Cosco's concern (removal of
``new'') was made in a final rule that was published in 1994. 59 FR
37167, July 21, 1994. Amendments made by that rule cannot be
reconsidered at this time through petitions for reconsideration.
However, NHTSA will address Cosco's concern, because it reflects a
fundamental misunderstanding of NHTSA's authority.
NHTSA can only test new products for compliance with the FMVSSs.
The agency lacks the authority to conduct compliance tests on any used,
[[Page 30832]]
previously-owned product, including a child seat, because under section
30112 of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are not responsible for
ensuring the continued compliance of their products ``after the first
purchase * * * in good faith other than for resale.'' Since NHTSA
cannot require a used child seat to meet Standard 213, the agency does
not test them for compliance. Thus, the word ``new'' was removed as
unnecessary.
e. Allowable Mass for Belt-Positioning Boosters
In response to Gerry Baby Products, this rule amends the
requirement of S5.4.3.2 that limits the force that may be imposed on a
child by a belt used to attach a child seat to a vehicle. This rule
prohibits any loads except those resulting from a child seat with a
mass less than 4.4 kg. The current exclusion is for child seats with a
mass less than 4 kg.
Prior to the July 1995 amendment, S5.4.3.2 specified that for add-
on child restraints (another provision specifies comparable
requirements for built-in restraints),
Each belt that is part of the 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
the mass of the system, or * * * (from) the mass of the seat back of
the standard seat assembly * * *.
The NPRM preceding the July rule (March 1994) 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.
However, comments to the NPRM indicated that the proposed amendment
of 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. The agency did not
intend that effect, nor did NHTSA believe that there is a sufficient
safety problem to warrant prohibiting current designs of belt-
positioning seats with backs. Yet, at the same time, NHTSA believed
that limits should be established to keep in check the potential for
injury due to overloading a child occupant, such as from a massive
child seat back.
The agency adopted an approach suggested by some commenters.
Century and the University of Michigan Child Passenger Program (UM-CPP)
suggested retaining the proposal but excluding from the requirement any
restraint with a mass of less than 4 kg (8.8 lb). These commenters
indicated the 4 kg limit is consistent with requirements in Europe and
the current U.S. market. NHTSA agreed to this approach, since there
have been no data showing that a child seat with a mass less than 4 kg
imposes harmful loads on a child.
Gerry petitioned for reconsideration of the 4 kg limit. Gerry
pointed out that the agency's belief that all the belt-positioning
seats in the U.S. market have a mass less than 4 kg was incorrect.
Gerry said that its Model 631 and 632 BeltRight and Evolution Booster
seats were shipped in March and April 1995, respectively. According to
the petitioner, these seats have a mass of up to 4.4 kg. In an October
13, 1995 addendum to its petition for reconsideration, Gerry stated
that it has received no report from the field ``indicating directly or
indirectly that any problems or injuries were associated with loads
being placed on the child by the booster seats.''
In view of Gerry's submission, NHTSA's decision to limit the
exclusion to 4 kg was based on erroneous information. NHTSA was not
aware of Gerry's Model 631 and 632 booster seats, and did not realize
that there were belt-positioning boosters with a mass greater than 4
kg. Gerry stated that its field experience indicates that its booster
seats, with a mass up to 4.4 kg, do not appear to be imposing unsafe
loads on the child occupant. Based on the above, the 4 kg limit
excluding seats from S5.4.3.2 is increased to 4.4 kg.
f. Knee Excursion
This document denies the request of the AAMA to increase the knee
excursion limit of 305 mm for built-in restraints (S5.1.3.1 (b)), or in
the alternative, remove the limit until such time as another knee
excursion limit can be developed.
AAMA's request relates to an amendment NHTSA adopted to clarify
Standard 213's knee excursion requirements. Prior to the amendment, the
excursion requirement for built-in child restraints (S5.1.3.1(b))
prohibited 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. The H-point is located at approximately the same location
as the ``hinge point'' on a vehicle seat. 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. However, comments
on this proposal 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.
Commenters suggested that, instead of using the H-point, the agency
should adopt 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.
NHTSA agreed to base the knee excursion limit for built-in seats on
the approach of Transport Canada. Thus, the agency adopted a
requirement that limited maximum knee translation in terms of the
initial position of the knee itself. Knee excursion is 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. The
rule limited 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).
AAMA petitioned for an increase in the allowance of 305 mm, when
testing a built-in booster seat with the 6-year-old dummy. AAMA
believed Transport Canada's knee excursion limits, on which the adopted
provisions were based, apply only to built-in conventional child seats,
and not to ``booster seats which would be tested
[[Page 30833]]
with the six-year-old dummy.'' AAMA believed ``an allowance greater
than 305 mm would appear to be required for the heavier six-year-old
dummy.''
NHTSA is denying AAMA's request because the requested change does
not appear warranted. The petitioner submitted no information to
support its request. For built-in restraints, knee excursion is
measured relative to the knee pivot on the test dummy. Thus, the 6-
year-old dummy's knees are allowed to move horizontally the same
distance, relative to the dummy, as the three-year-old dummy. Also,
when measured from a point fixed on the built-in child seat in which
the dummy is seated, the 6-year-old dummy is already permitted two
additional inches of forward excursion than the limit for the three-
year-old dummy. This is because the 6-year-old dummy's upper legs are
two inches longer than those of the three-year-old dummy. AAMA has not
demonstrated a need to increase the knee excursion limit for child
booster seats tested with the 6-year-old dummy.
VI. Corrections
a. Metrication
Cosco pointed out several errors or omissions in the rule. One
error concerned metrication, with regard to Standard 213's limits on
head excursion (S5.1.3.1(a)). Prior to the amendment, Standard 213
specified a head excursion limit of 32 inches, as measured from a point
on the standard seat assembly. The rule converted this limit to 810 mm.
Cosco said that in converting to the metric system, the rule changed
the head excursion requirement for add-on restraints from 32 inches to
31.89 inches, and thus made the requirement more stringent. In answer
to this comment, NHTSA did not intend to reduce allowable head
excursion. Thus, S5.1.3.1(a) will be corrected to specify a head
excursion limit of 813 mm. Mr. Louis Sokol suggested editorial
corrections to various references to centigrade. NHTSA has made these
corrections to S6.1.1(d), S9.2 and S9.3.
b. Labeling
Cosco petitioned for NHTSA to reconsider various aspects of the
labeling requirements adopted by the rule. The rule required
manufacturers to use both English and metric units in their child seat
labels, pertaining to the size of child for whom the restraint is
recommended. Cosco suggested deleting the word ``mass'' before the
metric unit, believing that this is unnecessary and will confuse
consumers. NHTSA agrees the word ``mass'' is not necessary and will not
require its use, although manufacturers may use the word if they wish.
Mr. Sokol was concerned that the rule did not specify whether
manufacturers should specify their height recommendations in
millimeters or centimeters, and suggested centimeters be used as more
``user friendly.'' NHTSA is not specifying which unit should be used,
but is allowing manufacturers to use any metric unit they feel is
appropriate for the recommended height limits for their restraints.
Cosco also suggested that the references to height on the child seat
label include ``between'' and ``less,'' as is currently required by
Standard 213. This rule retains those words.
c. Dummy Positioning
Another error that Cosco identified relates to the provisions for
positioning the test dummies in a child seat in preparation for dynamic
testing. Cosco said that, unlike current specifications that provide
for the lowering of the 3-year-old dummy's arms and legs, the rule did
not specify a similar provision for positioning the dummies used to
test forward-facing child restraints. This rule corrects the oversight
by adding a provision that provides for the rotating downwards of the
dummies' arms and legs, when testing forward-facing child restraint
systems. S10.2.1(c)(1)(ii), S10.2.2(d). This rule also corrects the
procedure for positioning the test dummies in testing rear-facing child
restraints (S10.2.1(c)(2) in the July 1995 rule). Paragraph
S10.2.1(c)(2) should specify rotating just the dummy's arms, and not
the legs. In addition, this rule clarifies the description of the
sequence of events preparing for the dynamic test (S6.1.2).
d. Dummy Selection
In both the preamble for the final rule and the June 1995 Final
Regulatory Evaluation for the rule (entry number 001 in docket 74-09-
N42), NHTSA indicated that if the range of children recommended by a
child restraint's manufacturer includes any children with a mass more
than 18 kg (40 lb), or a height of more than 1100 mm, the 6-year-old
dummy will be used in the compliance testing of that restraint. (60 FR
at 35133, 35134) However, the regulatory text implementing these
provisions (S7.1(d)) inadvertently specified that the 3-year-old (33
lb) dummy will also be used to test these restraints. This error in
S7.1(d) is corrected today.
VII. Compliance Date
The compliance date for this rule (the date on which manufacturers
must begin complying with the amendments) is September 1, 1996. This
date is the same compliance date as for the July 1995 final rule which
today's rule amends. It is in the public interest for the compliance
dates to be the same because most of the amendments made by today's
rule correct or clarify provisions of the July 1995 rule. The only
substantive changes made by today's rule are to amend S5.4.3.2 to
permit manufacturers to produce belt-positioning seats with a mass of
up to 4.4 kg (rather than limit the mass to 4 kg), and to provide them
the optional use of the word ``mass'' in labeling child seats. This
rule does not impose new requirements on manufacturers.
NHTSA is providing manufacturers the option of voluntarily
complying with the amendments made by today's rule before September 1,
1996. Manufacturers may comply with today's amendments beginning 30
days after the date of publication of this rule without violating any
provision in Standard 213 or 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. This accords with
an earlier decision by NHTSA to permit manufacturers the option of
voluntarily complying with the requirements adopted by the July 1995
final rule before the September 1 mandatory compliance date. Since
January 3, 1996, manufacturers could choose to voluntarily meet the
requirements of the July 1995 rule in lieu of the current requirements
in Standard 213. (See NHTSA's clarification of compliance date, 61 FR
4938, February 9, 1996.)
VII. 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
impacts of this rulemaking action and has determined that this action
is not ``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA has further
determined that the effects of this rulemaking are so minimal that
preparation of a full preliminary regulatory evaluation is not
warranted. The agency believes that manufacturers will be minimally
affected by this rulemaking because the main substantive change it
makes to the July 1995 final rule is to amend S5.4.3.2. That change, in
effect, permits belt-positioning seats to have a mass of up to 4.4 kg,
rather than limit the mass to 4 kg. The agency believes the effect of
this is minimal because there appears to be only one manufacturer,
Gerry Baby
[[Page 30834]]
Products, that is affected by this change. Further, the amendment will
affect just one product made by Gerry. Gerry manufactures different
types of child restraint systems, only one of which is the belt-
positioning booster. The agency thus concludes that this rule will have
a minimal effect on the manufacture of child restraints generally,
including Gerry's restraints.
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, since the only substantive amendment made by this rule is
to permit belt-positioning seats to have a mass of up to 4.4 kg, rather
than limit the mass to 4 kg. The effect of this is minimal because to
the agency's knowledge, there is only one manufacturer that is affected
by this change. Further, the amendment will affect just one product
made by that manufacturer. Since the amendment is permissive in nature,
there are no costs associated with it. This rule clarifies labeling
requirements and slightly revises the wording of the labels.
Manufacturers will incur some costs in changing the labels on their
child seats, but because the wording changes are minimal, those costs
should be negligible. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
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. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule includes new ``collections of information'' as that
term is defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). For
Standard 213, OMB has previously approved a collection of information
(OMB Control Number 2127-0511 ``Child Restraint Systems--49 CFR
571.213'') for use through August 31, 1996. NHTSA is preparing a
request for an extension of this collection of information approval for
an additional three years, and will include in the request, an estimate
of the new collection of information burden resulting from this final
rule. In the near future, NHTSA expects to issue a Federal Register
document asking for public comment on the request for extension of OMB
Control Number 2127-0511.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB's
regulations at 5 CFR section 1320.5(b)(2), NHTSA informs the potential
persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such
persons are not required to respond to the collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The currently
valid OMB control number is displayed above and in NHTSA's regulations
at 49 CFR Part 509, OMB Control Numbers for Information Collection
Requirements.
f. 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 S5.1.3.1(a), the introductory paragraph of S5.4.3.2,
S5.5.2(f), S5.5.5(f), S6.1.1(d), S6.1.2(b) through (f), removing
S6.1.2(g), revising S7.1(d), S9.2, S9.3, S10.2.1(c)(1), S10.2.1(c)(2),
b. adding S10.2.2(d), to read as follows:
Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.
* * * * *
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 813 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.
* * * * *
S5.4.3.2 Direct restraint. Except for a child restraint system
whose mass is less than 4.4 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
* * * * *
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 (____________ kg) or less and whose height is
(insert values in English and metric units; use of word ``mass'' in
label is optional) or less; or
(2) This child restraint is designed for use only by children who
weigh between ____________ and ____________ pounds (insert appropriate
metric
[[Page 30835]]
values; use of word ``mass'' is optional) and whose height is (insert
appropriate values in English and metric units) or less 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 appropriate
metric values; use of word ``mass'' is optional) and whose height is
between ____________ and ____________ inches (insert appropriate 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:
(1) This infant restraint is designed for use by children who weigh
____________ pounds (____________ kg) or less and whose height is
(insert values in English and metric units; use of word ``mass'' in
label is optional); or
(2) This child restraint is designed for use only by children who
weigh between ____________ and____________ pounds (insert appropriate
metric values; use of word ``mass'' is optional) and whose height is
(insert appropriate values in English and metric units) or less 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 appropriate
metric values; use of word ``mass'' is optional) and whose height is
between ____________ and ____________ inches (insert appropriate values
in English and metric units).
* * * * *
S6.1.1 * * *
(d) Performance tests under S6.1 are conducted at any ambient
temperature from 19 deg.C to 26 deg.C and at any relative humidity
from 10 percent to 70 percent.
* * * * *
S6.1.2 * * *
(b) Select 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. The dummy is assembled, clothed and prepared
as specified in S7 and S9 and Part 572 of this chapter, as appropriate.
(c) Place the dummy in the child restraint. Position it, and attach
the child restraint belts, if appropriate, as specified in S10.
(d) Belt adjustment.
(1) Add-on systems other than belt-positioning seats.
(i) If appropriate, shoulder and pelvic belts that directly
restrain the dummy 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.
(ii) All Type I belt systems used to attach an add-on child
restraint system to the standard seat assembly, and any provided
additional anchorage belt (tether), are tightened 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) Add-on belt-positioning seats.
(i) The lap portion of Type II belt systems used to attach the
child restraint to the standard seat assembly is tightened 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.
(ii) The shoulder portion of Type II belt systems used to restrain
the dummy is tightened 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.
(3) Built-in child restraint systems.
(i) The lap portion of Type II belt systems used to secure a dummy
to the built-in child restraint system is tightened 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.
(ii) The shoulder portion of Type II belt systems used to secure a
child is tightened 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.
(iii) If provided, and if appropriate to attach the child restraint
belts under S10, shoulder (other than the shoulder portion of a Type II
vehicle belt system) and pelvic belts that directly restrain the dummy
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.
(e) Accelerate the test platform to simulate frontal impact in
accordance with Test Configuration I or II, as appropriate.
(f) Determine conformance with the requirements in S5.1.
S7.1 * * *
(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 6-year-old child
dummy conforming to part 572 subpart I.
* * * * *
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.
S10.2.1 * * *
(c)(1)(i) 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 2,580 square mm, apply a force of 178 N,
perpendicular to:
(A) The plane of the back of the standard seat assembly, in the
case of an add-on system, or
(B) 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.
(ii) After the steps specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this
section, rotate each dummy limb downwards in the plane parallel to the
dummy's
[[Page 30836]]
midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child
restraint system or the standard seat assembly, in the case of an add-
on system, or the specific vehicle shell or specific vehicle, in the
case of a built-in system, as appropriate. Position the limbs, if
necessary, so that limb placement does not inhibit torso or head
movement in tests conducted under S6.
(2) When testing rear-facing child restraints, position the newborn
and 9-month-old dummy arms vertically upwards and then rotate each arm
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 * * *
(d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c) of this section,
rotate each dummy limb downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's
midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child
restraint system or the standard seat assembly, in the case of an add-
on system, or the specific vehicle shell or specific vehicle, in the
case of a built-in system, as appropriate. Position the limbs, if
necessary, so that limb placement does not inhibit torso or head
movement in tests conducted under S6.
Issued on June 13, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-15456 Filed 6-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P