[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30824-30836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15456]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74-09; Notice 46]
RIN 2127-AF02


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration; 
correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of a 
July 1995 final rule that amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems to add a greater array of 
sizes and weights of test dummies for use in Standard 213 compliance 
tests. This is the second of two documents responding to those 
petitions. An earlier document delayed the compliance date of the rule 
until September 1, 1996, for manufacturers of add-on (portable) child 
restraint systems.
    Most of the amendments made by today's rule correct or clarify 
provisions of the July 1995 rule. The only substantive changes made by 
today's rule are to amend provisions in that standard to permit 
manufacturers to produce belt-positioning seats with a mass of up to 
4.4 kg (rather than limit the mass to 4 kg), and to permit them to use 
the word ``mass'' in labeling child seats. Petitions for 
reconsideration of matters relating to other issues are denied.

DATES: This rule is effective July 18, 1996. The compliance date for 
the amendments made by this rule (i.e., the date on which manufacturers 
must begin complying with the amendments) is September 1, 1996. 
Beginning July 18, 1996, manufacturers may begin voluntarily complying 
with the amendments made by this rule.
    Petitions for reconsideration of this rule must be received by 
August 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and 
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC, 20590.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Current requirements
III. Final Rule
IV. Petitions for Reconsideration
V. Issues
    a. Mass Ranges
    b. Ninety-fifth percentile child dummy
    c. Weight and height should match
    d. Test Principles
    1. Speed Close to 30 mph
    2. Representative Seat Assembly
    3. Worst Case Testing
    4. Testing ``New'' Restraints
    e. Allowable Mass for Belt-Positioning Boosters
    f. Knee Excursion
VI. Corrections
    a. Metrication
    b. Labeling
    c. Dummy Positioning
    d. Dummy Selection
VII. Compliance Date
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    a. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    c. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
    d. National Environmental Policy Act
    e. Paperwork Reduction Act
    f. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

I. Introduction

    This document is the second of two documents responding to 
petitions for reconsideration of a final rule published July 6, 1995 
(60 FR 35126), and corrected September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50477). It also 
responds to other requests for rulemaking. The final rule amended 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint 
Systems'' (49 CFR 571.213), by adding a greater array of sizes and 
weights of test dummies to Standard 213 for use in compliance tests. 
The rule, completing a substantial upgrade of the standard long 
envisioned by the agency, also responded to the NHTSA Authorization Act 
of 1991 (sections 2500-2509 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (``ISTEA'')), which directed NHTSA to initiate 
rulemaking on child seat safety. The notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) for the rule was published March 16, 1994 (59 FR 12225).
    On December 12, 1995 (60 FR 63651), NHTSA published the first 
document responding to petitions for reconsideration of the rule. In 
response to petitions from Cosco Inc. and Gerry Baby Products Company, 
two manufacturers of add-on child restraint systems, NHTSA extended the 
compliance date of the rule from January 3, 1996, to September 1, 1996. 
The agency extended the compliance date to provide manufacturers of 
add-on systems sufficient time to evaluate their products and make any 
necessary changes to them.

II. Current Requirements

    Standard 213 applies to any device, except Type I (lap) or Type II 
(lap/shoulder) seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or 
aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children whose mass is 23 
kilograms (kg) (50 pounds) or less. The standard evaluates the 
performance of child restraint systems in dynamic

[[Page 30825]]

tests under conditions simulating a frontal crash of an average 
automobile at 48 kilometers per hour (kph) (30 miles per hour (mph)).
    The dynamic tests are conducted using a test dummy. Currently, 
Standard 213 (S7) specifies two different dummies for use in compliance 
testing. A dummy representing a 6-month-old child is used for testing a 
child restraint system that is recommended by its manufacturer for use 
by children in a mass range that includes children whose mass is 9 kg 
(weighing 20 pounds) or less. That dummy, which is uninstrumented, is 
specified in subpart D of 49 CFR part 572. A dummy whose mass is 15 kg 
(weighing 33 pounds), representing a 3-year-old child, is used for 
testing a child restraint system that is recommended for children whose 
mass is more than 9 kg (weighing more than 20 pounds). This dummy is 
instrumented with accelerometers for measuring accelerations in the 
head and chest during impacts, and is specified in 49 CFR part 572, 
subpart C.
    The requirements to be met by a child restraint in the dynamic 
testing include maintaining its structural integrity, retaining 
portions of the dummy within specified excursion limits (limits on how 
far specified portions of the body may move forward), and in the case 
of the 3-year-old dummy, limiting the forces exerted on the head and 
chest of the dummy in the crash. These requirements reduce the 
likelihood that the child using a child seat will be injured by the 
collapse or disintegration of the seat, by contact with the interior of 
the vehicle, or by imposition of intolerable forces by the seat.

III. Final Rule

    The final rule that is the subject of today's document amended 
Standard 213 to add three dummies, representing a newborn infant, 9-
month-old and 6-year-old child, for use in the future in compliance 
testing under the standard. The rule will remove the 6-month-old child 
dummy currently used, since the need for it was obviated by the 
addition of the new dummies.
    In adopting the new dummies, the agency sought to better evaluate 
the ability of child restraint systems to restrain and protect the 
range of children recommended for those systems. As a result of the 
rule, child restraints will have to meet the performance requirements 
of the standard while tested with dummies more representative of the 
children for whom the restraints are recommended. As a result, the 
performance of child restraints will be more thoroughly evaluated. A 
dummy representing children at the lower end of the weight ranges 
recommended for a restraint will evaluate the ability of the restraint 
to restrain its occupant. A dummy at the higher end will evaluate the 
structural integrity of the restraint.
    The rule adopted the following provisions specifying which of the 
new dummies NHTSA will use in the compliance testing of child restraint 
systems:

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

IV. Petitions for Reconsideration

    NHTSA received five petitions for reconsideration of the rule. One 
of these, from the Connecticut Attorney General's office, was untimely, 
and will be considered as a petition for rulemaking in accordance with 
Sec. 553.35 of NHTSA's regulations. In addition, Mr. Louis F. Sokol, a 
metrication consultant, in a letter to the agency, pointed out minor 
errors relating to the use of SI measurements, and suggested use of a 
particular metric unit on child seat labels. That letter is also 
addressed in today's document.

Discussion of Petitions

    This section briefly discusses the issues raised by each of the 
petitions, except issues relating to an extension of the compliance 
date for the rule. The agency responded to those compliance date issues 
in the earlier Federal Register document.
    Consumers Union (``CU'') petitioned for reconsideration of several 
aspects of the rule, including the mass/weight ranges and the 
specifications of which dummy or dummies will be used to test 
restraints in each mass/weight class. Consumers Union stated that the 
rule should not ``allow manufacturers to recommend any particular 
restraint system for children larger in weight than the weight for 
which the system is required to be tested by the standard.'' In 
addition, CU suggested changes to specific aspects of the dynamic test 
procedure.
    The Connecticut Attorney General's office expressed concerns 
similar to CU's. This petitioner asked NHTSA to require that all tests 
of child restraint systems use a test dummy ``with a weight consistent 
with the maximum recommended weight for use in the car seat.'' Similar 
to CU, this petitioner stated that the rule does not ``guarantee'' that 
infant seats recommended for infants up to 22 lb are safe for children 
who weigh up to 22 lb.
    Cosco, Inc. (``Cosco''), a manufacturer of add-on child restraints, 
raised several issues in its petition, the most significant of which 
related to one aspect of the mass ranges. Cosco wanted the 10 kg to 18 
kg (22 lb to 40 lb) category to be changed so that the upper limit is 
20 kg (44 lb). Cosco stated that restraints with a 43 lb maximum 
recommendation have been in the marketplace for years without evidence 
of a safety problem. The bulk of Cosco's other issues related to 
apparent errors or omissions in the rule.
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (``Advocates'') petitioned 
for reconsideration of an aspect of the mass ranges adopted by the 
rule. Advocates objected to the 18 kg (40 lb) dividing line between the 
third and fourth mass classes because there is no 18 kg test dummy. The 
petitioner stated that, without such a dummy, child restraints cannot 
be appropriately tested at 18 kg, which may be one extreme of a 
recommended mass range for a child restraint. In addition, Advocates 
objected to a discussion in the final rule relating to ``worst case'' 
testing.
    Two petitioners, a child restraint manufacturer and a consortium of 
built-in restraint manufacturers, petitioned about certain specific 
performance requirements. Gerry Baby Products Company (``Gerry'') 
requested a change to the requirement limiting the force that may be 
imposed on a child by the vehicle lap belt used to anchor a child seat 
to the vehicle (S5.4.3.2). The rule prohibited any loads except those 
resulting from a child seat with a mass less than 4 kg. Gerry 
petitioned to raise the limit from 4 kg to 4.4 kg. The American 
Automobile Manufacturers Association (``AAMA'') petitioned to increase 
the knee excursion limit of 305 mm for built-in restraints (S5.1.3.1 
(b)). AAMA stated that an allowance of 305 mm is too restrictive with 
respect to testing a booster seat with the 6-year-old dummy, and that 
until such time as an appropriate knee excursion limit can be developed 
for use with the dummy, no knee excursion limit should be in force.

[[Page 30826]]

V. Issues

    Most of the amendments made by today's rule correct or clarify 
provisions of the July 1995 rule. The only substantive changes made by 
today's rule are to amend S5.4.3.2 to permit manufacturers to produce 
belt-positioning seats with a mass of up to 4.4 kg (rather than limit 
the mass to 4 kg), and to permit them to use the word ``mass'' in 
labeling child seats. Petitions for reconsideration of matters relating 
to other issues are denied.

a. Mass Ranges

    Consumers Union (CU) petitioned for reconsideration of the 
provisions of the rule that specify which child test dummies are used 
to evaluate the performance of a particular child restraint system. CU 
stated that the standard should specify testing with ``a dummy 
representing the maximum weight of a child for whom the safety seat is 
designed.'' CU further stated that the standard should not permit 
manufacturers to recommend their restraints for any child weighing more 
than the heaviest test dummy used in the compliance testing of the 
product.
    The main provisions with which CU is concerned are those that 
specify how to test a rear-facing seat and a convertible seat. The 
provisions for testing rear-facing seats specify that, if the range of 
children recommended by a child restraint's manufacturer includes any 
children of masses in a range of 5 kg to 10 kg (approximately 11 to 22 
lb), the restraint is tested with both the newborn and 9-month-old (20 
lb) dummies (S7.1(b)). CU believed that it is unsafe to permit 
manufacturers to label a rear-facing restraint as suitable for infants 
with masses up to 10 kg (22 lb), when the heaviest dummy used in 
testing the restraint weighs only 20 lb. CU described tests it 
conducted using the 20 lb 9-month-old dummy in infant seats that were 
generally labeled for children up to 20 lb.

    Two popular models, certified by the manufacturers as safe based 
on tests with a smaller, lighter six-month-old [17.5 pound] dummy, 
and labeled for use by children up to 20 pounds, performed poorly 
when tested with the 20-pound dummy. In one case, the Century 590, 
the product barely passed our tests when tested with a 17.5-pound 
dummy, but failed dramatically when tested with a 20-pound dummy. In 
the second case, involving the Evenflo On My Way 206, the product 
failed in the same manner mentioned in NHTSA's press release of July 
25, 1995 (i.e., a crack in the shell) when tested with a 17.5 dummy, 
but failed in a dramatic fashion when tested with a 20-pound dummy.

    CU was thus concerned that, under the July 1995 rule, a rear-facing 
child restraint could meet Standard 213's requirements when tested with 
the 9-month-old (20 lb) dummy, but may or may not perform adequately 
when restraining a 22 lb child, even though the restraint is 
recommended for children weighing up to 22 lb.
    CU had similar concerns about convertible and toddler restraint 
systems. (Convertible restraints are adjustable so that in one 
adjustment position they can be used rear-facing by an infant or a very 
young child in the same manner as an infant-only seat and in another 
position, by a toddler who is forward-facing, i.e., restrained facing 
in the normal direction of travel of the vehicle.) The rule specifies 
that a restraint recommended for use by children of masses in a range 
from 10 kg to 18 kg (22 to 40 lb) is tested with the 9-month-old <SUP>1 
and 3-year old (33 lb) dummies (S7.1(c)). CU stated that these 
restraints should not be permitted to be recommended for children 
weighing more than 33 lb:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     <SUP>1  The 9-month-old dummy is not used to test booster 
seats.

    Because there is no standard 40-pound dummy available, we could 
test only with the 33-pound dummy. Hence, neither we nor the public 
nor NHTSA knows how these seats will perform with a child weighing 
between 33 and 40 pounds. In our view, this is an unacceptable 
situation for parents who are led by product labeling to believe 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that these seats will provide the necessary restraint in a crash.

    After carefully reviewing CU's petition, NHTSA has determined that 
safety is best served by denying it.
    The basis for the agency's decision to retain the 10 kg (22 lb) 
dividing line between the second and third weight ranges is grounded in 
the anatomical characteristics of infants and the corresponding real-
world need to keep infants in rear-facing child restraints up through 
the end of their first year. As discussed below, adoption of CU's 
request could have the unintended and undesired effect of encouraging 
the premature transition of infants to front facing child restraints.
    Infants have unique skeletal and muscular attributes. An article 
<SUP>2 by F. von Wimmersperg and Waldemar J. Czernakowski, ``The Safe 
Deceleration of Infants in Car Crashes,'' describes the biomechanical 
characteristics of infants, for consideration in developing adequate 
infant restraining devices:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     <SUP>2  This article was part of a petition for rulemaking 
submitted to NHTSA in 1992 by Century Products Co. (docket PRM-213-
22) concerning a requirement then in Standard 213 that infant seats 
not change adjustment position in dynamic testing (S5.1.1). See 
docket 74-09, notice 36.

    To facilitate the passage of the fetus through the birth canal, 
the mother and the fetus can deform during the slow, almost static 
loads of the birth process. This ability of the fetus to deform 
safely under slow loads is mortgaged by a high vulnerability to 
local, blunt dynamic loads by impact on the head or chest, or 
violent movements of the head by shaking or otherwise. * * * The 
infant is not just a scaled down older child. The anatomical 
differences are of such magnitude that engineering solutions 
adequate to decelerate older children can be expected to injure the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
infant.

``The Safe Deceleration of Infants in Car Crashes,'' Wimmersperg and 
Czernakowski, Proceedings of 20th STAPP Car Crash Conference, October 
1976, pp. 545-585.
    In addition to the undeveloped skeletal and muscular system of the 
infant, the size of the child's head and the stresses it produces on 
the neck make the infant extremely vulnerable to injury in frontal 
crashes. The head of a newborn represents one-third of the infant's 
total body weight. Unless properly supported, the head can produce a 
massive amount of force pulling on the undeveloped muscle system of an 
infant's neck in a crash.
    Because of these anatomical features, child passenger safety 
experts have strongly recommended that infants should be positioned 
rear-facing in a vehicle. Infant restraints are designed to face the 
child rearward so that in a frontal crash, the forces are spread evenly 
across the infant's back and shoulders, the strongest part of the 
child's body. Further, the back of the head rests against the seating 
surface. In this way, severe neck injuries are prevented. Von 
Wimmersperg and Czernakowski state that ``Injuries of the (infant's) 
neck and of the brain can be prevented only when the head mass and the 
torso mass decelerate gradually and simultaneously, with a minimum of 
relative movement.'' <SUP>3 Kathleen Weber of the Child Passenger 
Protection Research Program of the University of Michigan Medical 
School (UM-CPP) found that stretching forces acting on the neck can be 
reduced by half when forward-facing child dummies are turned to face 
the rear. She found that, in the forward-facing position, the neck of a 
six-month-old child dummy was subjected to about 1200 N of force, or 
over fifty times the weight of the head pulling on the neck. In tests 
in which

[[Page 30827]]

the dummy was restrained rear-facing, measured neck forces were less 
than half of the forward-facing values. ``Rear-Facing Restraint for 
Small Child Passengers,'' UMTRI Research Review, April-June 1995. Ms. 
Weber determined from her research that ``children are much less prone 
to serious neck injury in a rear-facing than a forward-facing child 
restraint, and that children should therefore be kept facing the rear 
of the vehicle until they are at least one-year old.'' Id., emphasis 
added. One-year is believed to be the earliest age at which a child 
should be turned to face forward because the infant's bones and 
muscular system take about eight to 12 months to ossify and develop to 
the point where it has outgrown the most serious vulnerability to 
local, blunt impacts on the head or chest, or violent movements of the 
head. Wimmersperg and Czernakowski, id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     <SUP>3  In their article, these authors discuss a new type of 
infant restraint, a swinging bed, which they believe transfers the 
load from a frontal impact over a large area of the infant and 
reduces the duration of maximal impact for each area element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While safety advocates recommend infants should be rear-facing 
until at least one year old, Standard 213's testing provisions 
inadvertently prevented manufacturers from recommending an upper weight 
limit that would enable children to stay rear-facing until one year of 
age. As noted in section II above, the standard specified that the 6-
month-old child dummy is used for testing a child restraint system that 
is recommended by its manufacturer for use by children in a weight 
range that includes children weighing 20 lb or less. The 3-year-old 
child dummy is used for testing a child restraint system recommended 
for children weighing more than 20 lb. (The 20 lb weight corresponds to 
the average nine-month-old child.) Recommending any rear-facing 
restraint for the average 12-month-old (whose average weight is 22 lb) 
would necessitate recommending the restraint for children weighing in 
excess of 20 lb. A rear-facing restraint recommended for children 
weighing more than 20 lb had to be certified as meeting Standard 213 
when tested with the 33 lb 3-year-old dummy.
    Testing a rear-facing child restraint with the 3-year-old dummy was 
problematic. In an April 22, 1992 interpretation letter to Century 
Products, NHTSA determined that if a convertible restraint could not 
physically permit the 3-year-old dummy to be positioned for the dynamic 
test, the restraint could not be recommended by its manufacturer for 
use in the rear-facing position by children weighing more than 20 
pounds. Moreover, since a rear-facing restraint recommended for a child 
weighing more than 20 lb must meet all performance criteria when tested 
with the 3-year-old dummy, most manufacturers will not certify their 
infant restraints to Standard 213. Rear-facing restraints typically 
have a seat back that is too low to enable the restraint to meet the 
standard's occupant head excursion requirement (S5.1.3.2) when tested 
with the 3-year-old dummy.
    To enable manufacturers to recommend rear-facing restraints for 
infants up to 12 months in age without making it necessary to test 
those restraints with the 33 lb 3-year-old dummy, the July 1995 rule 
divided the weight ranges in such a manner that the 3-year-old dummy is 
used to test a restraint only if the restraint is recommended for use 
by a child weighing more than 22 lb. In the proposed rule, NHTSA 
proposed a dividing line of 20 lb, but raised it to 22 lb in the final 
rule in response to commenters who believed that the change would 
encourage manufacturers to recommend positioning an infant in a rear-
facing position at least until the child is one year old. 60 FR at 
35131, 35132. NHTSA concluded that safety would be served by better 
ensuring that infants ride rear-facing until their skeletal and 
muscular structure can develop to where they can more safely withstand 
crash forces in a forward-facing position.
    While based on a desire to promote safety, CU's request to prohibit 
manufacturers from specifying their products for use by children 
exceeding the weight of the test dummy would have the opposite effect. 
Granting that request would not comport with real world needs of 
infants. As noted above, taking action that would have the effect of 
prohibiting rear-facing restraints from being recommended for children 
weighing more than 20 lb does not accord with safety data that indicate 
infants are safer riding rear-facing until at least 12 months old 
(i.e., until they reach 22 lb). It perpetuates a current ``impediment'' 
(Weber, id.) in Standard 213 that resulted in less than optimal, and 
possibly misleading, weight recommendations. Because 20 pounds is the 
weight of an average nine-month-old child, CU's approach would continue 
to limit weight recommendations in such a way as to possibly mislead 
consumers into thinking that an infant must be switched to face forward 
when the baby is only nine months old. This is likely to be before the 
infant's bones and muscular system have developed sufficiently to make 
seating the child in a forward facing position appropriate. Thus, CU's 
approach could have the unintended effect of detracting from the real-
world safety needs of older infants (ages nine- to 12-months).
    NHTSA notes that the potential adverse effect of CU's suggestion 
that the weights of the dummies used for Standard 213 compliance tests 
should determine the limits of the weight recommendations made by the 
manufacturers would have been even greater under Standard 213 prior to 
the July 1995 amendment. Under CU's approach and under that version of 
the Standard, infant restraint manufacturers would not have been 
allowed to recommend their restraints for children weighing more than 
the 17.5 lb (six-month-old) dummy. That limit would have pushed infants 
out of rear facing infant seats and into forward facing child 
restraints even more prematurely than under the July 1995 amendment.
    The agency recognizes that, even with the new test dummies 
incorporated into Standard 213, it may be possible to gain still more 
safety benefits from making further changes to the standard. The more 
dummies that were added to the standard, the more likely it would be 
that there would be dummies that coincided more exactly with the lower 
and upper limits of the range of recommended weight and sizes of 
children for a particular child restraint.
    A perfect standard might be one that incorporated test dummies 
representative of all children for whom a child restraint is 
recommended, including all children at the extremes of the recommended 
weight ranges. A perfect standard might be one that specified testing 
with ``a dummy representing the maximum weight of a child for whom the 
safety seat is designed,'' as CU suggested in its petition, assuming 
that dummies representing children of all types exist, and that the 
added costs and burdens of such testing could be justified by safety 
benefits. However, such dummies do not exist.
    In addition, the agency believes such an approach is unnecessarily 
restrictive, given that there has been no showing that the wider array 
of dummies incorporated into Standard 213 by the July 1995 rule are 
insufficient surrogates for the children for whom the restraints are 
recommended. There is no question that Standard 213 could possibly more 
extensively evaluate a restraint's performance if it incorporated more 
test dummies representing more of the children for whom the restraint 
is designed. In that regard, NHTSA notes that it is considering 
incorporating a 12-month-old (22 lb) child test dummy into Standard 213 
compliance testing, to make the evaluation of infant seats even more 
extensive. The agency is currently evaluating the 12-month-old CRABI 
dummy. However, the agency does not

[[Page 30828]]

believe that there is a safety problem that warrants prohibiting 
manufacturers from recommending infant seats for children up to a mass 
of 10 kg (22 lb) in the absence of such a dummy. NHTSA notes further 
that the test dummy that CU used to test infant seats, resulting in 
``not acceptable'' performance ratings, was the 20 lb nine-month-old 
adopted by the July 1995 rule. Thus, CU's testing of infant seats was 
not more thorough than that which will be required by the July 1995 
rule. After September 1, 1996, NHTSA will evaluate all infant seats 
using the same general methodology that CU used in its tests. Seats 
whose performance was found by CU to be ``not acceptable'' will need to 
be improved, to ensure that Standard 213's requirements will be met 
when NHTSA conducts its compliance tests.
    CU's belief that the upper end of the recommended weight ranges for 
users of infant restraints should be limited to 20 lb is based on its 
concern that the restraint may fail when restraining a heavier child. 
NHTSA notes that there is no information showing that failures will 
occur above 20 lb, or the nature and magnitude of such failures. While 
NHTSA agrees that child restraints should be tested with a test dummy 
representative of the children for whom the restraint is recommended, 
the agency does not agree that the nine-month-old dummy inadequately 
demonstrates the suitability of a restraint for children weighing 20 to 
22 lb.
    In contrast to CU's supposition that infant restraints could fail 
when restraining children weighing 20 to 22 lb, there is a demonstrable 
need, discussed above, to keep infants rear-facing longer. Even if some 
restraints were to fail in some degree when restraining a child 
weighing 20 to 22 pounds, the safety impact of these failures--to a 
limited portion of the infant population--must be weighed against the 
impact of forcing all children to make a premature shift from the safer 
rear-facing position to forward-facing. On balance, the agency believes 
there is a net safety benefit from keeping infants rear-facing longer.
    Accordingly, NHTSA is denying CU's request that the agency prohibit 
infant restraint manufacturers from recommending their restraints for 
children weighing more than 20 lb.
    For related reasons, the agency is also denying CU's suggestion 
that convertible and toddler restraints should not be permitted to be 
recommended for children weighing more than 33 lb. CU's approach would 
have the effect of forcing toddlers out of child restraints specially 
designed for young children (typically 20 to 40 lb) and into restraints 
that may not be appropriate for them, i.e., booster seats or the 
vehicle's belt systems. It is hypothetically possible that a restraint 
that passes the Standard 213 criteria when tested with a 33-lb dummy 
could fail when restraining a child weighing 33 to 40 lb. However, on 
balance, that possibility of such a failure is outweighed by the safety 
risk of forcing children into restraints that might not be appropriate 
for them.
    It is stressed that, even though Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards are minimum requirements, manufacturers of motor vehicles and 
child restraint systems generally aim at overdesigning their products 
to provide for higher performance to account for unforeseen 
uncertainties. Further, child restraints that are currently recommended 
for use up to 50 pounds are tested with just a three year (33 lb) 
dummy. More importantly, there are no data indicating a safety problem 
with these restraints when used to restrain children weighing 34 to 50 
lb. This rule is a substantial improvement to current testing 
requirements in Standard 213. Prior to the amendment, only the 33 lb 
dummy was used to test restraints recommended for children from 20 to 
50 lb. Under the amendment, the 33 lb dummy would be used to test 
restraints recommended for children weighing 22 to 40 lb, a much 
narrower range of weights.
    Since the agency is denying the parts of CU's petition relating to 
the mass ranges, it is also denying the petition for rulemaking from 
the Attorney General's Office for Connecticut. This petitioner asked 
NHTSA to require ``that all tests for child restraint systems use a 
test dummy with a weight consistent with the maximum recommended weight 
for use in the car seat.'' The petition raised issues identical to 
those of CU. For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA has not found a 
reasonable possibility that the order requested by Connecticut will be 
issued at the conclusion of the appropriate proceeding. Accordingly, 
NHTSA denies the rulemaking petition.
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (``Advocates'') objected to 
the agency's drawing the line between the third and fourth mass classes 
using the 18 kg (40 lb) limit because there is no 18 kg test dummy. The 
petitioner believed that, without such a dummy, child restraints cannot 
be adequately tested at 18 kg, which may be one extreme of a 
recommended mass range. Advocates preferred the mass classes proposed 
by the NPRM. The NPRM proposed that restraints recommended for children 
having a mass from 4 kg to not more than 9 kg (weights of 9 to 20 lb) 
would be tested with the newborn and 9-month-old dummies. Restraints 
recommended for children with masses from 9 to not more than 13.5 kg 
(20 to 30 lb) were to be tested with the 9-month-old and 3-year-old 
dummies, and those recommended for children with masses greater than 
13.5 kg were to be tested with the 3-year and 6-year-old dummies.
    NHTSA is denying Advocates' request to return to the mass 
categories of the NPRM. As explained in the final rule, Cosco pointed 
out in its comment that the proposed mass classes could cause problems 
for convertible restraints. The agency quoted a comment from Cosco, 
which stated that:

NHTSA's fourth category covers any car seats for children more than 
30 pounds. This includes both convertible seats and auto boosters, 
and would force manufacturers to test convertible seats with the 6-
year-old dummy, which weighs from 4 to 7 pounds more than the 
maximum weight recommended for these seats (40 to 43 pounds). The 6-
year-old dummy is also 9'' taller than the 3-year-old dummy and 
would almost certainly exceed the head excursion limit. Since it is 
doubtful that convertible car seats could pass with the 6-year-old 
dummy, it is likely that manufacturers would be forced to put a 
maximum weight of 30 pounds on their convertible seats. The proposal 
as it stands would therefore regulate out of existence one of the 
most effective types of car seats available.

    NHTSA concurred with Cosco's comment that convertible child 
restraints should not be tested with the six-year-old, 21.5 kg (47.3 
lb) dummy (60 FR at 35132). Convertible restraints are typically 
recommended for children from newborn to 18 kg (40 lb). The six-year-
old dummy is not representative of a child for whom the restraint is 
recommended. Further, according to Cosco, convertible restraints would 
have difficulty in meeting Standard 213's requirements when tested with 
the 6-year-old dummy. If the NPRM's mass ranges were adopted, 
manufacturers of convertible restraints would likely restrict use of 
their restraints to children with masses of less than 13.5 kg (30 lb), 
to avoid testing with the 6-year-old dummy. Since convertible 
restraints are generally considered effective at restraining children 
up to 18 kg (40 lb), such a restriction could likely result in parents 
moving their 30 lb toddlers into a booster seat or a vehicle belt 
system before booster seats or seat belts should be used by the younger 
child, assuming a restraint system is used at all after the convertible 
child restraint.
    NHTSA recommends that children should be kept in a convertible 
restraint for as long as they will fit such a

[[Page 30829]]

restraint, usually until they reach about 40 lb or four years. A 
convertible seat, which has shoulder straps, provides greater 
protection for children less than 40 lb than a booster seat, especially 
in rollover and other non-frontal crashes. See NHTSA's ``Child 
Passenger Safety Resource Manual,'' March 1992. A convertible seat may 
provide greater protection than a vehicle's belt system, which may not 
properly fit a young child. To be used correctly, the lap belt must be 
snug across the child's hips and must not ride up across the stomach, 
and the shoulder belt must not cross the face or the front of the neck. 
As a result of Advocate's approach, young children could be moved out 
of convertible restraints into a booster seat or a vehicle belt system 
too early (e.g., at 30 lb), which could have an overall negative safety 
impact.
    Given the above, Advocates has not provided sufficient reason for 
amending the mass ranges to return to those proposed in the NPRM. While 
under ideal circumstances, it might be desirable to have a 40 lb test 
dummy, such a dummy is unavailable. NHTSA has determined that, on 
balance, safety is better served with the mass ranges of the final 
rule, since it ensures the availability of convertible seats for 
toddlers in the 13.5 to 18 kg (30 to 40 lb) range.
    Cosco wanted the 10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb) category to be 
changed so that its upper limit is 20 kg (44 lb), to avoid subjecting 
convertible restraints to tests with the 47 lb 6-year-old child dummy. 
Cosco said that convertible restraints recommended for use by children 
up to 43 lb have been in the marketplace for years, without evidence of 
a safety problem. Cosco stated that raising the limit to 20 kg would be 
consistent with the recommendations of ``many passenger safety 
advocates'' that consumers should be encouraged to keep children in 
convertible restraints for as long as possible. Cosco argued that the 
rule is inconsistent in that under it manufacturers may recommend a 
convertible restraint for children of heights up to 1100 mm, which is 
the 95th percentile for children in the 3.5- to 4.5-year age group, and 
the restraint will not be tested with the 6-year-old dummy, yet 
manufacturers that recommend a restraint for children weighing up to 
the 95th-percentile child (43.2 lb), subject their restraints to 
testing with the 6-year-old dummy.
    NHTSA is denying Cosco's request to increase the upper limit to 20 
kg (44 lb). The agency believes that a restraint that is recommended 
for use by children with a mass of up to 20 kg (44 lb) should be tested 
with the 6-year-old (47 lb) dummy, because the dummy is sufficiently 
representative of children at the upper end of the recommended range of 
users. NHTSA recognizes that, as a result of this decision, 
manufacturers, such as Cosco, will likely revise their recommendations 
downward, such that, convertible restraints will not be recommended for 
children with a mass of more than 18 kg (40 lb). The issue of the 
relative safety of placing children with a mass more than 18 kg (40 lb) 
in convertible restraints as opposed to booster seats or vehicle belt 
systems is not nearly so easily resolved as is the issue of whether to 
place the child under 18 kg in a convertible restraint or the issue of 
whether to place a child less than one year old in a rear-facing or a 
forward-facing restraint. NHTSA anticipates that manufacturers will be 
able to develop designs that would enable a convertible restraint to 
meet Standard 213's performance requirements when tested with the 6-
year-old dummy, if such a restraint meets market demands. However, 
until a complying design is developed, the agency believes that a 
restraint that is recommended for a child with a mass of 18 to 20 kg 
(weight of 40 to 44 lb) should be tested with the 6-year-old (47-lb) 
dummy, to ensure that the restraint can maintain its structural 
integrity and properly retain a child in the upper recommended weight 
range.
    The agency does not agree with Cosco's comment that Standard 213 is 
inconsistent in that it permits manufacturers to recommend a 
convertible restraint for a child as tall as a 95th-percentile three-
year-old (height 1100 mm) without subjecting the seat to testing with 
the 6-year-old dummy. The agency did not intend to imply that 
manufacturers should label their restraints as suitable for a child in 
the 95th-percentile for height. The rule was intended to subject a 
child restraint to testing with an additional (larger) dummy if the 
manufacturer's recommended child height exceeds the height of the 95th 
percentile child. For example, a child restraint is to be tested with 
the 6-year-old dummy if its manufacturer recommended it for children 
taller than the 95th-percentile 3-year-old. The rule enabled NHTSA to 
use the manufacturer's height recommendations, in addition to the 
manufacturer's weight recommendation, to select the test dummies used 
in Standard 213's compliance test. If height were not a factor, it 
might be possible for a restraint to be tested with a dummy or dummies 
insufficiently representative of the range of children recommended for 
the restraint. This could occur if a manufacturer were to recommend 
inconsistent mass and height ranges. A manufacturer could create an 
inconsistency by recommending a height range that corresponds to 
children who are of greater mass than the masses expressly recommended 
by the manufacturer for the restraint. The rule used the 95th-
percentile values to give manufacturers wide latitude in recommending 
the reasonable height ranges they think are appropriate for their 
restraints. 60 FR at 35134.
    The agency does not believe the same wide latitude should be 
provided with regard to the mass recommendations. A dummy representing 
a 50th-percentile three-year-old child (33 lb), does not provide a full 
evaluation of the performance of a restraint when restraining a child 
of a mass of a 95th-percentile three-year-old (weighing 44 lb). NHTSA 
believes that if a manufacturer recommends its restraint for a child of 
a mass of a 95th-percentile three-year-old, the six-year-old child 
dummy (weighing 47 lb) better assesses the structural soundness of the 
seat and its ability to restrain children at the upper recommended mass 
range.

b. Ninety-fifth Percentile Child Dummy

    CU raised another issue about the adequacy of the test dummy used 
to evaluate the performance of a rear-facing seat. In its petition, CU 
recognized that ``most child development and safety experts advise that 
infants should ride in a rear-facing position up to the age of about 
one year.'' CU believed that, in the case where a seat is recommended 
for a particular age of child (i.e., infants up to the age of one 
year), the dummy used to test the restraint should be one representing 
``an above-average-sized'' child, i.e., a 95th-percentile one-year-old 
male child (weighing 26 lb), rather than a 50th percentile child. CU 
argued that by definition, half the children of a particular age weigh 
more than the median weight for that age. CU believed an above-average-
sized dummy is needed to ensure that results apply to most children in 
the user population.
    The agency is denying this request. As far as NHTSA is aware, 
manufacturers recommend their restraints for children based on the 
child's weight and height, as required by Standard 213's labeling 
provisions, rather than for a particular age of child (e.g., infants up 
to the age of one year). Thus, it does not appear the situation 
addressed by CU raises a safety problem.
    Further, assuming there are restraints that are recommended for 
infants up to the age of one year, the agency does not

[[Page 30830]]

entirely agree with CU. The agency agrees with the implication, raised 
in CU's petition, that in an ideal world, dummies would exist 
representing every size of child from birth to 50 lb, in each age and 
weight group. If such dummies existed, a most complete evaluation of a 
child restraint might be (barring cost implications) to test all child 
restraints with all dummies representative of any child for whom the 
restraint is recommended. However, such dummies do not exist. While a 
12-month-old dummy may have potential advantages over the nine-month-
old in testing rear-facing restraints, the 12-month-old dummy is not 
available at this time. Rulemaking requiring rear-facing restraints to 
be tested with the nine-month-old should not be suspended pending 
assessment of the suitability and availability of the 12-month-old 
child dummy as a test device.
    NHTSA also does not agree that a dummy representing a 95th-
percentile one-year-old male child is preferable over one representing 
a 50th-percentile child. The latter dummy is more representative of the 
children for whom the restraint is recommended, and thus gives a better 
representation of the overall performance of the restraint. Also, it 
appears that CU is making its determination of ``adequate protection'' 
only in terms of whether a restraint is capable of maintaining its 
structural integrity in the dynamic test. The agency agrees that the 
structural integrity of a restraint is better evaluated using a larger 
dummy than a smaller one. However, the ability of the restraint to 
contain an occupant is more effectively evaluated using a smaller dummy 
than a larger one. Using a dummy representing a 95th-percentile dummy 
could thus result in trade-offs between measuring the structural 
integrity of a restraint and the potential for ejection.

c. Weight and Height Should Match

    CU said that it observed inconsistencies in the height and weight 
limits specified on the labels for many safety seats. In particular, CU 
believed manufacturers are not ensuring that their height 
recommendations match the weight recommendations. CU said it noticed 
that some infant seats are labeled for use by infants weighing up to 20 
lb and up to 26 inches in height. CU states:

Twenty pounds is the 50th-percentile weight of a nine-month-old, 
while 26 inches is the 50th-percentile height of a six-month-old. 
Since children may exceed the height limit in this example before 
they reach the weight limit, parents who rely on the weight limit 
may use the product in a manner contrary to labeled instructions.

    The petitioner suggested that NHTSA require manufacturers to make 
recommendations for maximum height and weight that match both the 
height and weight of test dummies used in the tests on which the seat's 
certification was based.

    To the extent that CU is requesting that manufacturers should be 
prohibited from labeling their seats for use by children with weights 
exceeding the weight of the test dummy used to test the seat, this 
issue was addressed under section a, above, and will not be repeated 
here. To the extent that the petitioner requests that NHTSA adopt a 
provision in Standard 213 that requires the height and weight 
recommendations to ``match,'' NHTSA denies this request. The agency has 
not observed the labeling practices reported by CU. To the extent such 
practices have occurred, NHTSA does not believe they are widespread, or 
in need of the requirement suggested by CU. However, the agency will 
continue to monitor labeling practices.

d. Test Principles

    The effect of specifying the additional test dummies in Standard 
213 compliance testing is to require child restraints to meet the 
standard's performance criteria when restraining the new dummies. CU, 
Advocates and Cosco had questions about the agency's method of testing 
child restraints to the standard's dynamic performance requirements.
1. Speed Close to 30 MPH
    CU raised an issue about the test speeds used to test add-on child 
restraints. Under Standard 213, add-on systems are compliance tested in 
sled tests that simulate frontal barrier impacts. Standard 213 
specifies that the sled test for add-on child restraint systems is at a 
velocity change of 48 km/h (30 mph) ``with the acceleration of the test 
platform entirely within the curve shown in Figure 2'' of the standard. 
S6.1.1(b)(1).<SUP>4 In its petition for reconsideration, CU said that, 
based on its review of NHTSA compliance reports, NHTSA routinely 
conducts the compliance test at speeds in a range from 27.6 mph to 28.7 
mph. * * * (NHTSA's) compliance procedures, as spelled out in its 
Laboratory Procedure For Child Restraint System Testing (April 1981), 
permit impact speeds ranging from 27 mph to 30 mph. Hence, the current 
compliance program is significantly less demanding than the standard it 
professes to enforce. * * * Throughout our testing, we specified 30 mph 
as the target impact speed, and the lab was able to control the speed 
of the test sleds within <plus-minus>.3 m.p.h. Based on our experience, 
therefore, we recommend that the certification and compliance 
procedures specify a test speed ranging from 29.7 to 30.3 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\  The 48 km/h test is specified for ``Test Configuration I,'' 
which all applies to all child restraints. ``Test Configuration II'' 
is an additional 32 km/h (20 mph) misuse test for certain 
restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CU is correct that NHTSA's Laboratory Procedure for Standard 213 
compliance tests specifies that add-on restraints are tested at a 
velocity change of 27 to 30 mph. Test speeds are permitted to fall 
below 30 mph primarily because of the limit, also specified in Standard 
213 as a dynamic test condition, that ``the acceleration of the test 
platform (must be) entirely within the curve shown in Figure 2'' of the 
standard. The velocity at which the sled test is conducted controls 
whether the acceleration of the sled is within the curve depicted in 
Figure 2. In order to ensure that no portion of the acceleration curve 
is outside of the curve shown in Figure 2, NHTSA must adjust the 
velocity downward. Similarly, the test speed is carefully monitored, 
and adjusted slightly downward, to ensure that 30 mph is not exceeded. 
Contrary to CU's view, the agency believes it must ``err'' on the side 
of slightly reducing the test speeds to preserve the integrity of the 
compliance test. The agency must ensure that its compliance test data 
can withstand legal challenge. Exceeding the test conditions subjects 
the agency to claims that NHTSA conducted a more demanding test than 
that required in the standard. Thus, exceeding the test conditions at 
best would complicate enforcement efforts; worse, it could undermine 
the validity of the test. For these reasons, NHTSA concludes that, 
given the conditions in Standard 213 for the dynamic sled test, its 
test procedures should not be changed at this time.

    NHTSA is, however, undertaking an effort to evaluate Standard 213's 
test procedures and conditions, and will consider whether the provision 
limiting the acceleration of the test platform to the curve of Figure 2 
should be revised. Such an evaluation could result in an upward 
adjustment of the test velocities specified in the laboratory 
procedures. In the meantime, NHTSA stresses that Standard 213 specifies 
a velocity change of 30 mph that manufacturers should achieve, at a 
minimum, when designing and manufacturing child restraint systems.

[[Page 30831]]

2. Representative Seat Assembly
    NHTSA's compliance procedures specify that the test device for 
testing add-on child restraints is a ``standard seat assembly 
consisting of a simulated vehicle bench seat.'' (S6.1.1(a)(1), July 
1995 rule.) CU stated that the seat assembly is of a design 
representative of those used in vehicles of the early 1970's, and is 
not representative of current vehicle seat designs. While acknowledging 
``We (CU) have no data demonstrating what differences in test results 
or actual use performance this difference might have,'' CU believed the 
assembly should be updated.
    NHTSA agrees that the standard seat assembly should be 
representative of current vehicle seats, particularly if features of 
the assembly significantly affect the outcome of compliance tests 
conducted on it. Modifying the standard seat assembly could also be 
desirable for other reasons, such as possible cost reductions due to 
not having to change the flexible pin in the seat hinges of the 
standard seat assembly after each test. The agency is reviewing these 
issues in an on-going feasibility study at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and 
Test Center. The results will help NHTSA decide whether it needs to 
upgrade the seat assembly.
3. Worst Case Testing
    Advocates objected to the agency's discussion of ``worst case'' 
testing in the final rule (60 FR at 35133). The discussion responded to 
some commenters who generally believed that adopting the new dummies 
would result in unnecessary cost increases. They argued that testing a 
rear-facing seat with the infant dummy, and a forward-facing restraint 
(other than a booster seat) with the nine-month-old dummy would serve 
no useful purpose since the commenters believed there is no question 
that the restraints will pass the Standard 213 performance criteria 
using the dummies. The agency disagreed that no useful purpose is 
served by subjecting child restraints to tests with the array of 
dummies. NHTSA stated that, when child restraints are tested with only 
one dummy to represent a wide range of children, there is a risk that a 
restraint could be designed to perform adequately using the dummy, but 
could perform inadequately in restraining children at the extremes of 
the recommended weight ranges.
    The agency further stated:

It should be noted that this rule does not require manufacturers to 
test with all the specified dummies. A manufacturer may believe that 
testing with only the largest of a set of specified dummies 
represents ``worst case'' testing, and that there is no need to test 
its restraints with the smaller dummies. That is, a manufacturer may 
determine that a child restraint meeting Standard 213's performance 
criteria when tested under worst case conditions will likely meet 
those criteria when tested under less severe conditions. A 
manufacturer that tests its child restraint for certification 
purposes could limit its testing cost by deciding to test only a 
worst case scenario, i.e., testing under the most austere or 
unfavorable conditions and circumstances specified in the 
standard.<SUP>5 In the event that the agency found an apparent 
noncompliance, such as an ejection, using one of the smaller 
dummies, the manufacturer would have to demonstrate that it was 
reasonable for it to conclude that testing with the large dummy 
represented the worst case scenario. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\  Relying on worst case testing as a basis for a 
manufacturer's certification is commonplace among manufacturers. For 
example, Standard 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection,'' requires 
injury criteria to be met with the test vehicle traveling forward at 
any speed ``up to and including 30 mph'' into a fixed barrier ``that 
is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, or at any 
angle up to 30 degrees in either direction from the perpendicular'' 
(S5.1). Manufacturers typically test a vehicle at 30 mph into a 
perpendicular barrier since that is the worst case test. The 
manufacturers believe that if the vehicle passes that worst case 
test, it is reasonable to conclude it will pass less severe tests 
(e.g., at lower speeds into angled barriers). (Footnote 3 in text.)

    Advocates believed that this discussion meant that ``NHTSA has 
decided to permit manufacturers to avoid testing child restraints with 
all applicable test dummies.'' Advocates requested that NHTSA ``rescind 
permitting certification testing based on 'worst case' tests conducted 
only with the largest test dummy for the specified weight range.''
    NHTSA believes this comment reflects a misunderstanding of the 
compliance test procedures set forth in the FMVSSs. The July 1995 rule, 
which adopted the new test dummies into Standard 213, enabled NHTSA to 
test child restraints using the new dummies. As a result of the rule, 
manufacturers must ensure that their restraints will meet the 
requirements of Standard 213 when tested in the manner specified in the 
standard. The rule did not require manufacturers to use the new test 
dummies. None of the safety standards require manufacturers to test in 
a particular manner; manufacturers are not required to conduct any 
testing whatsoever before certifying that their products comply with 
Standard 213. If manufacturers choose to conduct testing in accordance 
with the compliance test procedures, they are free to simulate any or 
all parts of the test procedures.
    Thus, NHTSA's statements about worst case testing did not affect 
any responsibilities of manufacturers to test and certify their 
products. It did not ``permit'' manufacturers to certify their 
restraints using only the heavier of two test dummies; there never was 
a requirement that both dummies be used. Instead, the statement bore on 
whether the rule necessarily increased testing costs for manufacturers. 
NHTSA sought to explain that a manufacturer may choose to use only one 
of two test dummies to test its restraint, provided that the 
manufacturer exercises ``due care'' in making its certifications, as 
provided in section 30115 of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (formerly the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). Whether a manufacturer 
has exercised due care in using only one of two dummies is an issue 
that bears on NHTSA's consideration of the appropriateness of a civil 
penalty for a noncompliance. A manufacturer that can show that it 
exercised due care in making its certification would still be subject 
to the statutory obligation to recall and remedy its restraints that do 
not conform to the requirements of Standard 213. This same obligation 
would apply even if the manufacturer had conducted full compliance 
testing and used all the dummies specified for a given mass/weight 
range.
4. Testing ``New'' Restraints
    Cosco objected to an amendment concerning the condition of the 
child restraints that NHTSA will obtain for compliance testing. At one 
time, Standard 213 specified in its test procedure that the compliance 
test is conducted by, first, attaching a ``new'' child restraint on the 
standard seat assembly used to test child restraints. In amending this 
provision, NHTSA removed the reference to a ``new'' seat, and revised 
it to simply describe the child restraint test specimen as ``the'' 
restraint. Cosco was alarmed by this change, believing that it allowed 
NHTSA to conduct compliance testing with ``used seats, in any condition 
of wear, possibly with missing or damaged components,'' or with seats 
that have been in accidents.
    The amendment that is the cause of Cosco's concern (removal of 
``new'') was made in a final rule that was published in 1994. 59 FR 
37167, July 21, 1994. Amendments made by that rule cannot be 
reconsidered at this time through petitions for reconsideration. 
However, NHTSA will address Cosco's concern, because it reflects a 
fundamental misunderstanding of NHTSA's authority.
    NHTSA can only test new products for compliance with the FMVSSs. 
The agency lacks the authority to conduct compliance tests on any used,

[[Page 30832]]

previously-owned product, including a child seat, because under section 
30112 of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are not responsible for 
ensuring the continued compliance of their products ``after the first 
purchase * * * in good faith other than for resale.'' Since NHTSA 
cannot require a used child seat to meet Standard 213, the agency does 
not test them for compliance. Thus, the word ``new'' was removed as 
unnecessary.

e. Allowable Mass for Belt-Positioning Boosters

    In response to Gerry Baby Products, this rule amends the 
requirement of S5.4.3.2 that limits the force that may be imposed on a 
child by a belt used to attach a child seat to a vehicle. This rule 
prohibits any loads except those resulting from a child seat with a 
mass less than 4.4 kg. The current exclusion is for child seats with a 
mass less than 4 kg.
    Prior to the July 1995 amendment, S5.4.3.2 specified that for add-
on child restraints (another provision specifies comparable 
requirements for built-in restraints),

Each belt that is part of the child restraint system and that is 
designed to restrain a child using the system and to attach the 
system to the vehicle shall, when tested in accordance with [the 
dynamic test of] S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from 
the mass of the system, or * * * (from) the mass of the seat back of 
the standard seat assembly * * *.

    The NPRM preceding the July rule (March 1994) proposed to expand 
S5.4.3.2 to also apply it to each Type I and the lap portion of a Type 
II vehicle belt that is used to attach the child seat to the vehicle. 
These belts, which anchor the child seat to the vehicle, function to 
absorb the forces of the crash into the frame of the vehicle. NHTSA 
proposed that these belts not be permitted to transfer those crash 
forces to the occupant child.
    However, comments to the NPRM indicated that the proposed amendment 
of S5.4.3.2 would prohibit belt-positioning seats with a back, since 
the mass of those systems contributes to the loading of the vehicle 
seat belt on the restrained child during a crash. The agency did not 
intend that effect, nor did NHTSA believe that there is a sufficient 
safety problem to warrant prohibiting current designs of belt-
positioning seats with backs. Yet, at the same time, NHTSA believed 
that limits should be established to keep in check the potential for 
injury due to overloading a child occupant, such as from a massive 
child seat back.
    The agency adopted an approach suggested by some commenters. 
Century and the University of Michigan Child Passenger Program (UM-CPP) 
suggested retaining the proposal but excluding from the requirement any 
restraint with a mass of less than 4 kg (8.8 lb). These commenters 
indicated the 4 kg limit is consistent with requirements in Europe and 
the current U.S. market. NHTSA agreed to this approach, since there 
have been no data showing that a child seat with a mass less than 4 kg 
imposes harmful loads on a child.
    Gerry petitioned for reconsideration of the 4 kg limit. Gerry 
pointed out that the agency's belief that all the belt-positioning 
seats in the U.S. market have a mass less than 4 kg was incorrect. 
Gerry said that its Model 631 and 632 BeltRight and Evolution Booster 
seats were shipped in March and April 1995, respectively. According to 
the petitioner, these seats have a mass of up to 4.4 kg. In an October 
13, 1995 addendum to its petition for reconsideration, Gerry stated 
that it has received no report from the field ``indicating directly or 
indirectly that any problems or injuries were associated with loads 
being placed on the child by the booster seats.''
    In view of Gerry's submission, NHTSA's decision to limit the 
exclusion to 4 kg was based on erroneous information. NHTSA was not 
aware of Gerry's Model 631 and 632 booster seats, and did not realize 
that there were belt-positioning boosters with a mass greater than 4 
kg. Gerry stated that its field experience indicates that its booster 
seats, with a mass up to 4.4 kg, do not appear to be imposing unsafe 
loads on the child occupant. Based on the above, the 4 kg limit 
excluding seats from S5.4.3.2 is increased to 4.4 kg.

f. Knee Excursion

    This document denies the request of the AAMA to increase the knee 
excursion limit of 305 mm for built-in restraints (S5.1.3.1 (b)), or in 
the alternative, remove the limit until such time as another knee 
excursion limit can be developed.
    AAMA's request relates to an amendment NHTSA adopted to clarify 
Standard 213's knee excursion requirements. Prior to the amendment, the 
excursion requirement for built-in child restraints (S5.1.3.1(b)) 
prohibited the dummy's knee pivot from passing through a plane that is 
a specified distance ``forward of the hinge point of the specific 
vehicle seat into which the system is built.'' Chrysler suggested 
(docket 74-09-N24-001) that NHTSA amend the reference point because the 
``hinge point of the specific vehicle seat'' cannot be readily 
determined for most vehicle seats. This is because most vehicle seats 
into which a built-in child restraint is fabricated do not have hinges 
for their backs, or are configured so that the hinge point is not 
easily seen during dynamic testing.
    NHTSA proposed to address this concern by referencing the H-point 
on the seat. The H-point is located at approximately the same location 
as the ``hinge point'' on a vehicle seat. The H-point of a specific 
vehicle seating position is determined by using equipment and 
procedures specified in the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 
recommended practice SAE J826 (May 1987), ``Devices for Use in Defining 
and Measuring Vehicle Seating Accommodation.'' The H-point is 
identified either during the seat's design by means of a two-
dimensional drafting template, or after the vehicle is completely 
manufactured, by means of a three-dimensional device. However, comments 
on this proposal expressed concern that using the H-point as a 
reference still results in ambiguity in the test procedure, since the 
H-point varies from vehicle to vehicle, and is not easily seen during 
dynamic testing.
    Commenters suggested that, instead of using the H-point, the agency 
should adopt Transport Canada's approach to measuring knee excursion 
for built-in restraints. That approach limits the forward knee movement 
to a maximum of 305 mm (12 inches) at any time during the test from the 
initial knee position of the dummy.
    NHTSA agreed to base the knee excursion limit for built-in seats on 
the approach of Transport Canada. Thus, the agency adopted a 
requirement that limited maximum knee translation in terms of the 
initial position of the knee itself. Knee excursion is measured using a 
point on the ``knee pivot'' that is easily defined on the test dummy. 
The knee pivot point is easily observed during the dynamic test. The 
rule limited the longitudinal horizontal movement of the knee pivot 
point, from the initial position of the knee pivot, to a maximum of 305 
mm (12 inches). The 12 inch value is equivalent to the level of 
performance currently required by Standard 213 (i.e., 914 mm (36 
inches) measured from the hinge point of the seat assembly).
    AAMA petitioned for an increase in the allowance of 305 mm, when 
testing a built-in booster seat with the 6-year-old dummy. AAMA 
believed Transport Canada's knee excursion limits, on which the adopted 
provisions were based, apply only to built-in conventional child seats, 
and not to ``booster seats which would be tested

[[Page 30833]]

with the six-year-old dummy.'' AAMA believed ``an allowance greater 
than 305 mm would appear to be required for the heavier six-year-old 
dummy.''
    NHTSA is denying AAMA's request because the requested change does 
not appear warranted. The petitioner submitted no information to 
support its request. For built-in restraints, knee excursion is 
measured relative to the knee pivot on the test dummy. Thus, the 6-
year-old dummy's knees are allowed to move horizontally the same 
distance, relative to the dummy, as the three-year-old dummy. Also, 
when measured from a point fixed on the built-in child seat in which 
the dummy is seated, the 6-year-old dummy is already permitted two 
additional inches of forward excursion than the limit for the three-
year-old dummy. This is because the 6-year-old dummy's upper legs are 
two inches longer than those of the three-year-old dummy. AAMA has not 
demonstrated a need to increase the knee excursion limit for child 
booster seats tested with the 6-year-old dummy.

VI. Corrections

a. Metrication

    Cosco pointed out several errors or omissions in the rule. One 
error concerned metrication, with regard to Standard 213's limits on 
head excursion (S5.1.3.1(a)). Prior to the amendment, Standard 213 
specified a head excursion limit of 32 inches, as measured from a point 
on the standard seat assembly. The rule converted this limit to 810 mm. 
Cosco said that in converting to the metric system, the rule changed 
the head excursion requirement for add-on restraints from 32 inches to 
31.89 inches, and thus made the requirement more stringent. In answer 
to this comment, NHTSA did not intend to reduce allowable head 
excursion. Thus, S5.1.3.1(a) will be corrected to specify a head 
excursion limit of 813 mm. Mr. Louis Sokol suggested editorial 
corrections to various references to centigrade. NHTSA has made these 
corrections to S6.1.1(d), S9.2 and S9.3.

b. Labeling

    Cosco petitioned for NHTSA to reconsider various aspects of the 
labeling requirements adopted by the rule. The rule required 
manufacturers to use both English and metric units in their child seat 
labels, pertaining to the size of child for whom the restraint is 
recommended. Cosco suggested deleting the word ``mass'' before the 
metric unit, believing that this is unnecessary and will confuse 
consumers. NHTSA agrees the word ``mass'' is not necessary and will not 
require its use, although manufacturers may use the word if they wish. 
Mr. Sokol was concerned that the rule did not specify whether 
manufacturers should specify their height recommendations in 
millimeters or centimeters, and suggested centimeters be used as more 
``user friendly.'' NHTSA is not specifying which unit should be used, 
but is allowing manufacturers to use any metric unit they feel is 
appropriate for the recommended height limits for their restraints. 
Cosco also suggested that the references to height on the child seat 
label include ``between'' and ``less,'' as is currently required by 
Standard 213. This rule retains those words.

c. Dummy Positioning

    Another error that Cosco identified relates to the provisions for 
positioning the test dummies in a child seat in preparation for dynamic 
testing. Cosco said that, unlike current specifications that provide 
for the lowering of the 3-year-old dummy's arms and legs, the rule did 
not specify a similar provision for positioning the dummies used to 
test forward-facing child restraints. This rule corrects the oversight 
by adding a provision that provides for the rotating downwards of the 
dummies' arms and legs, when testing forward-facing child restraint 
systems. S10.2.1(c)(1)(ii), S10.2.2(d). This rule also corrects the 
procedure for positioning the test dummies in testing rear-facing child 
restraints (S10.2.1(c)(2) in the July 1995 rule). Paragraph 
S10.2.1(c)(2) should specify rotating just the dummy's arms, and not 
the legs. In addition, this rule clarifies the description of the 
sequence of events preparing for the dynamic test (S6.1.2).

d. Dummy Selection

    In both the preamble for the final rule and the June 1995 Final 
Regulatory Evaluation for the rule (entry number 001 in docket 74-09-
N42), NHTSA indicated that if the range of children recommended by a 
child restraint's manufacturer includes any children with a mass more 
than 18 kg (40 lb), or a height of more than 1100 mm, the 6-year-old 
dummy will be used in the compliance testing of that restraint. (60 FR 
at 35133, 35134) However, the regulatory text implementing these 
provisions (S7.1(d)) inadvertently specified that the 3-year-old (33 
lb) dummy will also be used to test these restraints. This error in 
S7.1(d) is corrected today.

VII. Compliance Date

    The compliance date for this rule (the date on which manufacturers 
must begin complying with the amendments) is September 1, 1996. This 
date is the same compliance date as for the July 1995 final rule which 
today's rule amends. It is in the public interest for the compliance 
dates to be the same because most of the amendments made by today's 
rule correct or clarify provisions of the July 1995 rule. The only 
substantive changes made by today's rule are to amend S5.4.3.2 to 
permit manufacturers to produce belt-positioning seats with a mass of 
up to 4.4 kg (rather than limit the mass to 4 kg), and to provide them 
the optional use of the word ``mass'' in labeling child seats. This 
rule does not impose new requirements on manufacturers.
    NHTSA is providing manufacturers the option of voluntarily 
complying with the amendments made by today's rule before September 1, 
1996. Manufacturers may comply with today's amendments beginning 30 
days after the date of publication of this rule without violating any 
provision in Standard 213 or 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. This accords with 
an earlier decision by NHTSA to permit manufacturers the option of 
voluntarily complying with the requirements adopted by the July 1995 
final rule before the September 1 mandatory compliance date. Since 
January 3, 1996, manufacturers could choose to voluntarily meet the 
requirements of the July 1995 rule in lieu of the current requirements 
in Standard 213. (See NHTSA's clarification of compliance date, 61 FR 
4938, February 9, 1996.)

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

a. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The agency has considered the 
impacts of this rulemaking action and has determined that this action 
is not ``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA has further 
determined that the effects of this rulemaking are so minimal that 
preparation of a full preliminary regulatory evaluation is not 
warranted. The agency believes that manufacturers will be minimally 
affected by this rulemaking because the main substantive change it 
makes to the July 1995 final rule is to amend S5.4.3.2. That change, in 
effect, permits belt-positioning seats to have a mass of up to 4.4 kg, 
rather than limit the mass to 4 kg. The agency believes the effect of 
this is minimal because there appears to be only one manufacturer, 
Gerry Baby

[[Page 30834]]

Products, that is affected by this change. Further, the amendment will 
affect just one product made by Gerry. Gerry manufactures different 
types of child restraint systems, only one of which is the belt-
positioning booster. The agency thus concludes that this rule will have 
a minimal effect on the manufacture of child restraints generally, 
including Gerry's restraints.

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The agency knows of 13 manufacturers of child restraints, 
seven of which NHTSA considers to be small businesses (including 
Kolcraft, which with an estimated 500 employees, is on the borderline 
of being a small business). This number does not constitute a 
substantial number of small entities. Regardless of this number, NHTSA 
does not believe this rule will have a significant impact on small 
businesses, since the only substantive amendment made by this rule is 
to permit belt-positioning seats to have a mass of up to 4.4 kg, rather 
than limit the mass to 4 kg. The effect of this is minimal because to 
the agency's knowledge, there is only one manufacturer that is affected 
by this change. Further, the amendment will affect just one product 
made by that manufacturer. Since the amendment is permissive in nature, 
there are no costs associated with it. This rule clarifies labeling 
requirements and slightly revises the wording of the labels. 
Manufacturers will incur some costs in changing the labels on their 
child seats, but because the wording changes are minimal, those costs 
should be negligible. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a 
regulatory flexibility analysis.

c. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and the 
agency has determined that this rule does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

d. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

e. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule includes new ``collections of information'' as that 
term is defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). For 
Standard 213, OMB has previously approved a collection of information 
(OMB Control Number 2127-0511 ``Child Restraint Systems--49 CFR 
571.213'') for use through August 31, 1996. NHTSA is preparing a 
request for an extension of this collection of information approval for 
an additional three years, and will include in the request, an estimate 
of the new collection of information burden resulting from this final 
rule. In the near future, NHTSA expects to issue a Federal Register 
document asking for public comment on the request for extension of OMB 
Control Number 2127-0511.
    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB's 
regulations at 5 CFR section 1320.5(b)(2), NHTSA informs the potential 
persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such 
persons are not required to respond to the collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The currently 
valid OMB control number is displayed above and in NHTSA's regulations 
at 49 CFR Part 509, OMB Control Numbers for Information Collection 
Requirements.

f. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 
set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 571.213 is amended by--
    a. revising S5.1.3.1(a), the introductory paragraph of S5.4.3.2, 
S5.5.2(f), S5.5.5(f), S6.1.1(d), S6.1.2(b) through (f), removing 
S6.1.2(g), revising S7.1(d), S9.2, S9.3, S10.2.1(c)(1), S10.2.1(c)(2),
    b. adding S10.2.2(d), to read as follows:


Sec. 571.213  Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.

* * * * *
    S5.1.3.1 * * *
    (a) In the case of an add-on child restraint system, no portion of 
the test dummy's head shall pass through a vertical, transverse plane 
that is 813 mm forward of point Z on the standard seat assembly, 
measured along the center SORL (as illustrated in figure 1B), and 
neither knee pivot point shall pass through a vertical, transverse 
plane that is 915 mm forward of point Z on the standard seat assembly, 
measured along the center SORL.
* * * * *
    S5.4.3.2  Direct restraint. Except for a child restraint system 
whose mass is less than 4.4 kg, each belt that is part of a child 
restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the 
system and to attach the system to the vehicle, and each Type I and lap 
portion of a Type II vehicle belt that is used to attach the system to 
the vehicle shall, when tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads 
on the child that result from the mass of the system, or
* * * * *
    S5.5.2 * * *
    (f) One of the following statements, inserting the manufacturer's 
recommendations for the maximum mass and height of children who can 
safely occupy the system, except that booster seats shall not be 
recommended for children whose masses are less than 13.6 kg:
    (1) This infant restraint is designed for use by children who weigh 
____________ pounds (____________ kg) or less and whose height is 
(insert values in English and metric units; use of word ``mass'' in 
label is optional) or less; or
    (2) This child restraint is designed for use only by children who 
weigh between ____________ and ____________ pounds (insert appropriate 
metric

[[Page 30835]]

values; use of word ``mass'' is optional) and whose height is (insert 
appropriate values in English and metric units) or less and who are 
capable of sitting upright alone; or
    (3) This child restraint is designed for use only by children who 
weigh between ____________ and ____________ pounds (insert appropriate 
metric values; use of word ``mass'' is optional) and whose height is 
between ____________ and ____________ inches (insert appropriate values 
in English and metric units).
* * * * *
    S5.5.5 * * *
    (f) One of the following statements, inserting the manufacturer's 
recommendations for the maximum mass and height of children who can 
safely occupy the system, except that booster seats shall not be 
recommended for children whose masses are less than 13.6 kg:
    (1) This infant restraint is designed for use by children who weigh 
____________ pounds (____________ kg) or less and whose height is 
(insert values in English and metric units; use of word ``mass'' in 
label is optional); or
    (2) This child restraint is designed for use only by children who 
weigh between ____________ and____________ pounds (insert appropriate 
metric values; use of word ``mass'' is optional) and whose height is 
(insert appropriate values in English and metric units) or less and who 
are capable of sitting upright alone; or
    (3) This child restraint is designed for use only by children who 
weigh between ____________ and ____________ pounds (insert appropriate 
metric values; use of word ``mass'' is optional) and whose height is 
between ____________ and ____________ inches (insert appropriate values 
in English and metric units).
* * * * *
    S6.1.1 * * *
    (d) Performance tests under S6.1 are conducted at any ambient 
temperature from 19  deg.C to 26  deg.C and at any relative humidity 
from 10 percent to 70 percent.
* * * * *
    S6.1.2 * * *
    (b) Select any dummy specified in S7 for testing systems for use by 
children of the heights and weights for which the system is recommended 
in accordance with S5.5. The dummy is assembled, clothed and prepared 
as specified in S7 and S9 and Part 572 of this chapter, as appropriate.
    (c) Place the dummy in the child restraint. Position it, and attach 
the child restraint belts, if appropriate, as specified in S10.
    (d) Belt adjustment.
    (1) Add-on systems other than belt-positioning seats.
    (i) If appropriate, shoulder and pelvic belts that directly 
restrain the dummy shall be adjusted as follows: Tighten the belts 
until a 9 N force applied (as illustrated in figure 5) to the webbing 
at the top of each dummy shoulder and to the pelvic webbing 50 mm on 
either side of the torso midsagittal plane pulls the webbing 7 mm from 
the dummy.
    (ii) All Type I belt systems used to attach an add-on child 
restraint system to the standard seat assembly, and any provided 
additional anchorage belt (tether), are tightened to a tension of not 
less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N, as measured by a load cell 
used on the webbing portion of the belt.
    (2) Add-on belt-positioning seats.
    (i) The lap portion of Type II belt systems used to attach the 
child restraint to the standard seat assembly is tightened to a tension 
of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N, as measured by a load 
cell used on the webbing portion of the belt.
    (ii) The shoulder portion of Type II belt systems used to restrain 
the dummy is tightened to a tension of not less than 9 N and not more 
than 18 N, as measured by a load cell used on the webbing portion of 
the belt.
    (3) Built-in child restraint systems.
    (i) The lap portion of Type II belt systems used to secure a dummy 
to the built-in child restraint system is tightened to a tension of not 
less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N, as measured by a load cell 
used on the webbing portion of the belt.
    (ii) The shoulder portion of Type II belt systems used to secure a 
child is tightened to a tension of not less than 9 N and not more than 
18 N, as measured by a load cell used on the webbing portion of the 
belt.
    (iii) If provided, and if appropriate to attach the child restraint 
belts under S10, shoulder (other than the shoulder portion of a Type II 
vehicle belt system) and pelvic belts that directly restrain the dummy 
shall be adjusted as follows: Tighten the belts until a 9 N force 
applied (as illustrated in figure 5) to the webbing at the top of each 
dummy shoulder and to the pelvic webbing 50 mm on either side of the 
torso midsagittal plane pulls the webbing 7 mm from the dummy.
    (e) Accelerate the test platform to simulate frontal impact in 
accordance with Test Configuration I or II, as appropriate.
    (f) Determine conformance with the requirements in S5.1.
    S7.1 * * *
    (d) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in 
accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass 
range that includes any children having a mass greater than 18 kg, or 
by children in a specified height range that includes any children 
whose height is greater than 1100 mm, is tested with a 6-year-old child 
dummy conforming to part 572 subpart I.
* * * * *
    S9.2  Preparing clothing. Clothing other than the shoes is 
machined-washed in 71  deg.C to 82  deg.C and machine-dried at 49 
deg.C to 60  deg.C for 30 minutes.
    S9.3  Preparing dummies. Before being used in testing under this 
standard, dummies must be conditioned at any ambient temperature from 
19  deg.C to 25.5  deg.C and at any relative humidity from 10 percent 
to 70 percent for at least 4 hours.
    S10.2.1 * * *
    (c)(1)(i) When testing forward-facing child restraint systems, 
extend the arms of the 9-month-old test dummy as far as possible in the 
upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the 9-month-old dummy as 
far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy 
feet perpendicular to the centerline of the lower legs. Using a flat 
square surface with an area of 2,580 square mm, apply a force of 178 N, 
perpendicular to:
    (A) The plane of the back of the standard seat assembly, in the 
case of an add-on system, or
    (B) The back of the vehicle seat in the specific vehicle shell or 
the specific vehicle, in the case of a built-in system, first against 
the dummy crotch and then at the dummy thorax in the midsagittal plane 
of the dummy. For a child restraint system with a fixed or movable 
surface described in S5.2.2.2, which is being tested under the 
conditions of test configuration II, do not attach any of the child 
restraint belts unless they are an integral part of the fixed or 
movable surface. For all other child restraint systems and for a child 
restraint system with a fixed or movable surface which is being tested 
under the conditions of test configuration I, attach all appropriate 
child restraint belts and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. Attach 
all appropriate vehicle belts and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. 
Position each movable surface in accordance with the instructions that 
the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2.
    (ii) After the steps specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this 
section, rotate each dummy limb downwards in the plane parallel to the 
dummy's

[[Page 30836]]

midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child 
restraint system or the standard seat assembly, in the case of an add-
on system, or the specific vehicle shell or specific vehicle, in the 
case of a built-in system, as appropriate. Position the limbs, if 
necessary, so that limb placement does not inhibit torso or head 
movement in tests conducted under S6.
    (2) When testing rear-facing child restraints, position the newborn 
and 9-month-old dummy arms vertically upwards and then rotate each arm 
downward toward the dummy's lower body until the arm contacts a surface 
of the child restraint system or the standard seat assembly in the case 
of an add-on child restraint system, or the specific vehicle shell or 
the specific vehicle, in the case of a built-in child restraint system. 
Ensure that no arm is restrained from movement in other than the 
downward direction, by any part of the system or the belts used to 
anchor the system to the standard seat assembly, the specific shell, or 
the specific vehicle.
    S10.2.2 * * *
    (d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 
rotate each dummy limb downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's 
midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child 
restraint system or the standard seat assembly, in the case of an add-
on system, or the specific vehicle shell or specific vehicle, in the 
case of a built-in system, as appropriate. Position the limbs, if 
necessary, so that limb placement does not inhibit torso or head 
movement in tests conducted under S6.

    Issued on June 13, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-15456 Filed 6-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P