[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